From jlfullsack at orange.fr Sun Nov 30 17:58:39 2014 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 23:58:39 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> References: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <1629970842.16620.1417388319391.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> Hi Carlos you wrrote < Nice to be sitting comfortably somewhere in Europe and doing this kind of shallow evaluation of our political process. You should better take a look at the disastrous neoliberal policies being practiced in Europe since the 2008 crisis. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a.   Fraternal ? Really ?? BTW  : how do you know I'm "siting comfortably somewhere in Europe" ? For your information, I 'm just back at home from my five hours trip to Geneva, where I participated -and actively contributed  as one of the rare CS participants- to the CSTD 2014-2015 Intersessionel Panel. I'll transmit later a short report of it to the lists. BTW, my e-mail address ends with .fr, indicating, as you may know, I'm living in France. In turn, I'm wondering how it's possible for "a Brazilian, from Sao Paolo and living in Rio" to get an e-mail address ending by .ca ...  But I must admit, I'm not an Internet insider :-))   Best regards   Jean-Louis Fullsack         > Message du 30/11/14 19:18 > De : "Carlos Afonso" > A : "Jean-Louis FULLSACK" , governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "SureshRamasubramanian" , "parminderitforchange.net" > Copie à : "HartmutRichardGlaser" , "bestbitslists.bestbits.net" > Objet : Re: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br > > Hi Jean, I am a Brazilian, from São Paulo and living in Rio. No one saw > "hundreds of thousands" in the streets in June 2013 or any other time > except in the 80's with the campaign for direct elections for president > and the 90' with the movement for ethics in politics. Brazil has 142 > million voters. It takes a lot more than a few hundreds of 1-2 thousand > people in Paulista Avenue to be representative of the will of Brazilian > people. > > Nice to be sitting comfortably somewhere in Europe and doing this kind > of shallow evaluation of our political process. You should better take a > look at the disastrous neoliberal policies being practiced in Europe > since the 2008 crisis. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 11/30/14 18:47, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > Dear Carlos > > > > Yoiu wote : > > > > < there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took > > the reigns > > of the government of Brazil. > > > > You are right : there were hundreds of thousand Brasilians -Indignados > > and others- in the streets and places to protest about Lula's and > > Dilma's "softened" policy. > > > > BTW, Davos is hosting annually a "policicy softening course of > > treatment" ... > > > > Best regards > > > > Jean-louis Fullsack > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Message du 23/11/14 00:47 > > > De : "Carlos Afonso" > > > A : "Suresh Ramasubramanian" , > > "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , > > "parminder at itforchange.net" > > > Copie à : "Hartmut Richard Glaser" , > > "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > > > Objet : Re: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br > > > > > > Dear people, > > > > > > In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as > > president. As > > > usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with > > massive > > > acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in loco > > the > > > thousands of people cheering Lula. > > > > > > From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of > > > corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social movements of > > > course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a > > sort of > > > scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, > > NGOs > > > and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among > > them) -- > > > our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, and > > there is > > > no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took the > > reigns > > > of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it would be > > the other > > > way around. > > > > > > I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of > > > arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different > > > (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. > > > > > > fraternal regards > > > > > > --c.a. > > > > > > (*) See, for example, this report: > > > > > http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate-globalisation > > > > > > On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > >> > > > >> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br > > has now come > > > >> out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and > > ICANN (basically > > > >> doing US's bidding) game. > > > > > > > > Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. > > > > > > > > > > > >> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave > > the world > > > >> the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the > > basic lessons > > > >> with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain > > economic and > > > >> political elite, and their impatience with democracy, > > especially at the > > > >> global level! > > > >> > > > > > > > > Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. > > > > > > > > Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that > > excludes stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic > > backgrounds that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but > > merely pure demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain > > far, far away from the civil society mainstream thinking on this > > subject. > > > > > > > >> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the > > Brazilian > > > >> government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a > > great loss, > > > >> and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive > > community > > > >> has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be > > taken for > > > > > > > > I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global > > progressive community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you > > continue to push, and that the majority of the community apparently > > doesn't share. > > > > > > > >> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out > > > >> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global > > governance > > > >> initiative.* > > > >> > > > > > > > > Your support, and those of the small splinter group of > > extremists that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us > > all from such support. > > > > > > > >> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work > > together > > > >> with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil > > society offer > > > >> ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the > > interests > > > >> and fate of the people of the world, and of the future > > generations. Let > > > > > > > > That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of > > inclusiveness. Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large. > > You don't and have never represented it all. > > > > > > > > --srs > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 30 19:10:16 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 05:40:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <1629970842.16620.1417388319391.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> References: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> <1629970842.16620.1417388319391.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> Message-ID: You know, there is this semi miraculous entity called a registrar. You pay them the required fee and they will register you a .ca domain, which you might want even I'd you don't live in Canada, if, for example, your initials are CA. --srs (iPad) > On 01-Dec-2014, at 04:28, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > BTW, my e-mail address ends with .fr, indicating, as you may know, I'm living in France. In turn, I'm wondering how it's possible for "a Brazilian, from Sao Paolo and living in Rio" to get an e-mail address ending by .ca ... But I must admit, I'm not an Internet insider :-)) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 30 22:56:25 2014 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (Guru) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 09:26:25 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> References: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <547BE6E9.4060206@ITforChange.net> Grande CA, You can be sure that not only will Jean-Louis "look at the disastrous neoliberal policies being practiced in Europe since the 2008 crisis", he will be unhappy with it. But of course that does not mean he, or many of us need not be concerned with Brazil's role in the NMI. The reason why many of us are concerned about Brazil participation in a space (WEF) that 'belongs' to the business elite of the world, is simply that many of us consider Brazil a global leader in supporting policies programmes for social justice, human rights, democracy. As Parminder mentioned in an earlier post, the WSF, which took birth in Brazil sees itself (inter alia) as the antidote to the "disastrous neoliberal policies" that WEF is associated with/promotes. Since you are also concerned about the dangers of neo-liberalism, the following excerpt may be useful read: The *World Social Forum* (WSF, Portuguese : /Fórum Social Mundial/ [ˈfɔɾũ soˈsjaw mũdʒiˈaw] ) is an annual meeting of civil society organizations, first held in Brazil , which offers a self-conscious effort to develop an alternative future through the championing of counter-hegemonic globalization . Some^// consider the World Social Forum to be a physical manifestation of global civil society , as it brings together non governmental organizations , advocacy campaigns as well as formal and informal social movements seeking international solidarity . The World Social Forum prefers to define itself as "an opened space – plural, diverse, non-governmental and non-partisan – that stimulates the decentralized debate, reflection, proposals building, experiences exchange and alliances among movements and organizations engaged in concrete actions towards a more solidarity, democratic and fair world....a permanent space and process to build alternatives to neoliberalism ."^[1] ...It tends to meet in January at the same time as its "great capitalist rival", the World Economic Forum's Annual Meeting in Davos , Switzerland . This date is consciously picked to promote their alternative answers to world economic problems in opposition to the World Economic Forum . Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Social_Forum Hope Brazil will really rethink its participation in the NMI. warm fraternal regards Guru On Sunday 30 November 2014 11:48 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote: > Hi Jean, I am a Brazilian, from São Paulo and living in Rio. No one > saw "hundreds of thousands" in the streets in June 2013 or any other > time except in the 80's with the campaign for direct elections for > president and the 90' with the movement for ethics in politics. Brazil > has 142 million voters. It takes a lot more than a few hundreds of 1-2 > thousand people in Paulista Avenue to be representative of the will of > Brazilian people. > > Nice to be sitting comfortably somewhere in Europe and doing this kind > of shallow evaluation of our political process. You should better take > a look at the disastrous neoliberal policies being practiced in Europe > since the 2008 crisis. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 11/30/14 18:47, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: >> Dear Carlos >> >> Yoiu wote : >> >> < there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took >> the reigns >> of the government of Brazil. >> >> You are right : there were hundreds of thousand Brasilians -Indignados >> and others- in the streets and places to protest about Lula's and >> Dilma's "softened" policy. >> >> BTW, Davos is hosting annually a "policicy softening course of >> treatment" ... >> >> Best regards >> >> Jean-louis Fullsack >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Message du 23/11/14 00:47 >> > De : "Carlos Afonso" >> > A : "Suresh Ramasubramanian" , >> "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , >> "parminder at itforchange.net" >> > Copie à : "Hartmut Richard Glaser" , >> "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" >> > Objet : Re: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br >> > >> > Dear people, >> > >> > In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as >> president. As >> > usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with >> massive >> > acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in loco >> the >> > thousands of people cheering Lula. >> > >> > From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of >> > corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social >> movements of >> > course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a >> sort of >> > scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, >> NGOs >> > and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among >> them) -- >> > our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, and >> there is >> > no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took the >> reigns >> > of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it would be >> the other >> > way around. >> > >> > I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of >> > arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different >> > (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. >> > >> > fraternal regards >> > >> > --c.a. >> > >> > (*) See, for example, this report: >> > >> http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate-globalisation >> > >> > On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> > >> >> > >> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br >> has now come >> > >> out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and >> ICANN (basically >> > >> doing US's bidding) game. >> > > >> > > Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. >> > > >> > > >> > >> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave >> the world >> > >> the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the >> basic lessons >> > >> with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain >> economic and >> > >> political elite, and their impatience with democracy, >> especially at the >> > >> global level! >> > >> >> > > >> > > Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. >> > > >> > > Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that >> excludes stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic >> backgrounds that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but >> merely pure demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain >> far, far away from the civil society mainstream thinking on this >> subject. >> > > >> > >> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the >> Brazilian >> > >> government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a >> great loss, >> > >> and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive >> community >> > >> has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be >> taken for >> > > >> > > I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global >> progressive community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you >> continue to push, and that the majority of the community apparently >> doesn't share. >> > > >> > >> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you >> come out >> > >> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global >> governance >> > >> initiative.* >> > >> >> > > >> > > Your support, and those of the small splinter group of >> extremists that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us >> all from such support. >> > > >> > >> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work >> together >> > >> with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil >> society offer >> > >> ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the >> interests >> > >> and fate of the people of the world, and of the future >> generations. Let >> > > >> > > That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of >> inclusiveness. Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large. >> You don't and have never represented it all. >> > > >> > > --srs >> > > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bzs at world.std.com Sat Nov 1 00:02:26 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 00:02:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <3DDD7908-830B-4D53-9824-737F2DC07553@digsys.bg> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> <21583.61688.286480.255502@world.std.com> <5450C671.4080302@digsys.bg> <21586.40289.268447.626242@world.std.com> <3DDD7908-830B-4D53-9824-737F2DC07553@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <21588.23378.910700.805109@world.std.com> You're using a different meaning of "defined" than I intended, sorry, my fault for being ambiguous. By "defined" I meant that for example that ARIN is the RIR for North American (roughly) and then the ARIN region is defined by a list of nation-states. https://www.arin.net/knowledge/rirs/ARINcountries.html There are several exceptions, mostly small island entities which are roughly in the ARIN vicinity (e.g., St Pierre & Miquelon, British Virgin Islands) but not strictly nation-states. And a few outliers (e.g., St Helena) which...had to go some place. Nonetheless the point should be self-evident: The RIR regions are defined by a set of nation-states (e.g., ARIN: USA, Canada, Jamaica) with some small exceptions for practical reasons. RIPE NCC is the same. So to go back to the original point (not by you, what I was responding to): Stating that IP address allocation authority should not be "Westphalian" seems, I'll use the word again, disingenuous. Perhaps stating a contrapositive is even more clear: Other than perhaps some small outlying islands or similar special cases no nation-state is split between two RIRs. Even the vast Russian Federation which spans two continents is entirely within only the RIPE NCC region. On October 31, 2014 at 20:24 daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) wrote: > > > > On 30.10.2014 г., at 22:19, Barry Shein wrote: > > > > 2. > > > > Change subject slightly, not a response to anything below: > > > > In reference to the comments about a "Westphalian" view of address > > allocation: > > > > We do currently have a regional division of organizations for address > > allocation, APNIC (Asia-Pacific), AfrNIC (Africa), LACNIC (Latin > > Amer), ARIN (N. Amer.), and RIPE (Europe.) > > > > And these in turn are defined by the nation-states they serve. > > Some of us are old enough to know, and hopefully not old enough to still remember... > > All these were built later, using the model of the very successful RIPE NCC. The RIPE NCC was conceived, designed and built by a bunch of European folk, who were then involved in building the informal pan European data network, loosely based on internet protocols, that later grew up to become today's internet (after being fast adopted by our friends across the pond). > > There was never, ever, any government or even nation-state element in how it was all organized. In fact nation-state was at one time considered, by experimenting with national last resort IP address registries, but was ultimately abandoned because the community was not using it (I know first hand, as I was running one of these myself). > > The RIPE NCC is also a very interesting example, as it has members from a very broadly defined "European" region. It would have served much wider audience (again, on strictly netizen based representation), if it was not for international politics, that pushed for the creation of more strictly regional groups. > > Anyway, most people will happily ignore history and draw conclusions from whatever fits their (current) agenda. Again, human nature. > > I was today at a meeting with our government, and they insisted that "multistakeholderism", "as they were told by ICANN" means, that governments should have more role in managing the Internet. They also commented that Bulgaria is the only country in Europe with a liberal regime where the government does not control the Internet (their wording), and this should be fixed. > Notice a pattern? > > Daniel -- -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 drc at virtualized.org Sat Nov 1 02:30:41 2014 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 23:30:41 -0700 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <21588.23378.910700.805109@world.std.com> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> <21583.61688.286480.255502@world.std.com> <5450C671.4080302@digsys.bg> <21586.40289.268447.626242@world.std.com> <3DDD7908-830B-4D53-9824-737F2DC07553@digsys.bg> <21588.23378.910700.805109@world.std.com> Message-ID: Barry, On Oct 31, 2014, at 9:02 PM, Barry Shein wrote: > So to go back to the original point (not by you, what I was responding > to): Stating that IP address allocation authority should not be > "Westphalian" seems, I'll use the word again, disingenuous. In no way can IP address allocation be considered Westphalian, at least as I understand the term. In my view, IP address allocation authority derives from the acceptance of the network operational community to accept the authority of the registry system. If you disagree, what do you think would happen if (say) the government of West Elbonia decided to "redistribute" 192.74.137.0/24 to themselves. My experience has been that ISPs care a bit more about contracts and getting paid than what some far off nation in which they have no customers might decide on any given day. Nation-states have the ability to compel entities within their borders to do things they might not otherwise desire to do. In the context of IP address allocation, a nation-state can compel ISPs within that nation-state's borders to ignore the allocations of the registry system, however the impact of that action would mostly be to disconnect the nation-state from the Internet unless ISPs outside of the nation-state agree. This would be ... unlikely as it is a sure path to pure chaos. By and large, nation-states prefer not to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, so they haven't (to date) ignored the existing registry system, despite its numerous warts. Life might get a little more interesting with IPv4 exhaustion, but I hope not. > Perhaps stating a contrapositive is even more clear: Other than > perhaps some small outlying islands or similar special cases no > nation-state is split between two RIRs. Even the vast Russian > Federation which spans two continents is entirely within only the RIPE > NCC region. I believe the fact that the IEPG/FNC/IAB/RIRs decided to split up the planet on semi-arbitrary geopolitical boundaries was purely a convenience. It was not related to allocation authority. Regards, -drc (ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself. Really.) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Sat Nov 1 03:02:36 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 15:02:36 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <028701cfef9c$69dab030$3d901090$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <14942a48a80.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <028701cfef9c$69dab030$3d901090$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <326787D7-ECE4-435F-AEE7-7FFFC434FDF9@difference.com.au> On 24 Oct 2014, at 11:08 pm, michael gurstein wrote: > Of course these models of governance are aspirations—goals, directions towards which we strive, but which equally have the effect of strongly conditioning our current decisions and directions—which is why this discussion is not theoretical but extremely practical. Well, I for one find that JNC positions, which are effectively critical of all current models to some extent, where more directed to practical positive outcomes. > Is the direction towards which we strive in the area of global (Internet) governance one that maximizes democracy (rule by and for the people) or one that maximizes multi-stakeholderism (rule by and for the elite who have “stakes”)? Simple question. Disingenous question, as you are sbsolutely aware that many on this list would regard your characterisation of multi-stakeholderism as wildly misleading. And, for that matter, many would regard JNC positions as frequently, while rhetorically applauding democracy, as in practical terms leading in the opposite direction. > Siva went on to suggest that MSism is the next stage beyond democracy an even stronger position In some respects, it may be, considering what you regard it as evolving from. If you regard democracy as being strict majoritarianism in all things then MSism surely stands in opposition to that, but that is an incredibly naive position on democracy held by practically no one. > – that is that rule by and for the people has now somehow become obsolete in the face of the overwhelming ascendance of certain private corporations, certain elite groups, certain countries and their allies. The view of multi-stakeholder processes you have is one that I feel can only be maintained by dedicated non-engagement. > Civil Society of course has traditionally (classically) supported democracy and the broadest base of participation in the structures and operations of governance. Indeed. And it should continue to do so. This is not, however, necessarily in opposition to multi-stakeholderism, especially in transnational fora in which democratic mechanisms do not practically exist. > But in the absence of a denial of these propositions rejecting Democracy presented by Siva and others it would appear that that too has become obsolete. Siva simply said he didn't feel that discussing this particular issue at this point in time, which would require first a thorough debunking of your constant urge to mis-characterise both multi-stakeholderism and democracy, is not a high priority. Your efforts to construe a desire not to engage as meaning what you want it to mean are an empty rhetorical position that proves nothing. Please stop. Regards David > > M > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 7:52 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Gene Kimmelman'; michael gurstein > Cc: 'Sivasubramanian M'; forum at justnetcoalition.org; 'Avri Doria'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP' > Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > Why isn't a multi stakeholder process any less broad or inclusive than say a multi lateral government only model, or a Parliamentary model in which a few elected representatives (whom you may not even have voted for), or a bureaucrat employed by the government elected by a country, determines policy that affects you? > > True participatory democracy, going by the letter of that wiki definition, appears to be found in the cantons of Switzerland I guess, or on a smaller scale, in a local club where every member has a voice and a stake on where to hold their annual event, for example. > > On 24 October 2014 10:33:45 am "michael gurstein" wrote: > > No, I don’t think so, Gene. > > Siva has made a very clear and simple statement here in the context of most of those in CS currently active in the IG space on an issue of quite central importance going forward. > > I would have thought that advocates of the MSist model would be only too delighted to make a public declaration of opposition on this matter, or by their silence indicate consent. > > M > > From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 7:21 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: Sivasubramanian M; forum at justnetcoalition.org; Avri Doria; IGC; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> IRP > Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > I'm sorry Michael, but I think silence -- at least on my part -- indicates that many of us just don't have the time to engage right now on the merits of this; I'm just too busy and think this may be something better to discuss in person at some future meeting. > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:59 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Perhaps we can assume here that silence is consent. > > M > > From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 6:51 AM > To: 'Sivasubramanian M' > Cc: 'Avri Doria'; 'Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; IRP; forum at justnetcoalition.org > Subject: RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > Thanks for this Sivasubramanian… > > Can I/we take this i.e. that MSism (governance by self-appointed elites) is the “next evolutionary stage of democracy” is a generally agreed upon position among the proponents of MSism? > > M > > From: Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 6:12 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: Avri Doria; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > Dear Michael Gurstein, > > The definitions are reconciled when the multistakeholder model is viewed as the next phase of evolution of Democracy, and in this phase, it is in its initial stages of evolution with some aspects being defined. > > Sivasubramanian M > > Sivasubramanian M > +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:57 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > You can of course a la the Lewis Carroll’s the Queen of Hearts define anything you like as whatever you like but I’m very curious how your reconcile the current practice of MSism with this definition of Participatory Democracy (from Wikipedia > > Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greek demos andkratos) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participatory. … > > Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. > It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”. > But maybe I’m missing something. > M > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:34 PM > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > > On 23-Oct-14 08:20, michael gurstein wrote: > If you take a look at my > blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my > argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in > competition with democratic governance. > > > I haven't read your blog. But I always define multistakeholderism (m17m) as a form of participatory democracy that builds on the representative democracy that some few nations have put into effect as well as the bottom-up organic coming together of stakeholders, who sometime aggregate into stakeholder groups, on a particular theme. I define it as a form of democracy somewhere between basic representative democracy and full direct democracy. > > I think many other accept some form of the m17m is a form of participatory democracy definition. So the frames of reference are really quite different. > > avri > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Sat Nov 1 03:23:12 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 15:23:12 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <63D52A7B-B43D-48CF-B56D-B6AB0AEF5C2E@difference.com.au> On 25 Oct 2014, at 2:19 am, michael gurstein wrote: > As I pointed out in an earlier message MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this by putting the condition of “stakeholdership”. In iCANN processes, general users of the Internet qualify as stakeholders. While obviously it is impractical for someone who does not yet have access to the Internet to directly participate, there is no barrier to anyone who wishes to advocate for the interests of that group participating, and some do. There are no effective bars to participation based on the definition of stakeholder. This applies to most other MS bodies - for example, becoming involved with an IETF process is literally as simple as joining a mailing list. If you want to be involved in a specific process, you can. They are very open - far, far, more open than any government policy development process of which I am aware. And Michael, you should know this. Are you ignorant of this, despite having allegedly studied these institutions for years, or disingenuously lumping IG MS bodies in with the WEF etc again? You keep using 'self-appointed' as if it is a terrible thing. If the process is truly open, of course many participants will be self-appointed. You keep using self-appointed pejoratively - I'm taking from this that you want a closed process, in which all participants are gatekeepered (presumably by governments, or some other bureaucratic process?)? Regards David > > Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greekdemos and kratos) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participatory. … > Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. > It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”. > M > > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org] > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 11:13 AM > To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > On 24/10/2014 11:03 am, michael gurstein wrote: > > As you and perhaps everyone well knows I have for several years both via these email lists and my blog been asking for a definition of “MSism”, each time getting a reply somewhat parallel to Gene’s trivial response “Yes, I am very busy making public declarations as appropriate on important matters. And I'm sure I and many others will address this issue when we see the right time and place to do so.” > > And I realize how important you are and how valuable your time is but surely since this has been a dominant meme and priority initiative for you and other elements of CS for several years some type of definition would be appropriate and surely sometime over those last few years there would have been a “right time and place” to give that definition! > > That's why I set up a fluid working group under Best Bits to develop such a definition, but there was not much participation (or maybe the LiquidFeedback software was too complex for people to be comfortable using): > > http://bestbits.net/lf/ > > So far, FWIW, this is the definition that has most support (Avri wrote it): > > Multistakeholderism: 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. > with the following definitions of some included terms > > Equal footing: > The recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all stakeholders, on the basis of equality and without discrimination, of the freedom to participate in multistakeholder processes. In Internet governance this is in line with stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities, which should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion. As with UN representation by governments, where all are equal regardless of size or wealth, contributions should be judged on their quality, and not by the number of people that a representative may claim. Notions of equal footing must take into account all aspects of capacity to participate, and must strive to enable full participation through capacity building and development agendas. > > Stakeholder: > A term borrowed from Project Management. > > ” 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. “ > > and the derivative: > > Multistakeholder process: > A form of participatory democracy where any person, alone or as part of a group, can contribute fully. > > > > -- > 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 :: > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Sat Nov 1 03:33:12 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 15:33:12 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <04dc01cfefd3$9bbff420$d33fdc60$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> <04dc01cfefd3$9bbff420$d33fdc60$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3F314044-822E-4B6F-BDA7-A82F0CB3671C@difference.com.au> On 25 Oct 2014, at 5:43 am, michael gurstein wrote: > The issue is not of course whether there should be the broadest base of “consultation” possible prior to decision making (including “multi-stakeholder” presumably because those involved will have direct knowledge of the affairs under discussion). This is quite different from “governance” which includes processes of actual decision making—allocation of resources, determination of benefits and so on. So, if there has been a broad multi-stakeholder process, that includes civil society, government, representatives of minorities etc that has achieved consensus between all of them - you think a policy that was strongly disagreed with by civil society, business, many minority groups, should be overruled if a simple majority of elected representatives vote for it? (setting aside the practical issues of creating a transnational group of elected representatives etc just for the moment) > Including corporate foxes (for example) to guard public henhouses strikes me as an exceedingly bad way of proceeding. But, of course, any decision making that only includes the foxes would not be multi-stakeholder. Remember the old joke about democracy being two foxes and a chicken voting on lunch. It is far more difficult to get consensus from the chicken. Cheers David > > The issue is to whom are the decision makers ultimately accountable—in a Democracy, aspirationally to “the people”, in a MSist world to self-selected elite “stakeholders”. > > M > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf OfSivasubramanian M > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 1:06 PM > To: David Allen > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org > Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > Dear David Allen, > > It requires different variations of the Multi-Stakeholder model for​different purposes. For the purpose of Internet Governance, we have 700 seats in the room with 7000 participants in rotation, with 70 million others listening, which is sufficient. If we are extending this thought to the government of Nations or the World, then it would not be a replacement for Democracy, but an enhancement (or call it a Complement), in the sense that the Elected Representatives and the Appointed Functionaries would involve the rest of the people in day to day debates and decisions by using the Multi-stakeholder model. So, in a scenario where the multi-stakeholder model is extended to the larger arena of Governance, after elections, those elected would make choices by the multi-staekholder model. > > There is a positive, apolitical reason why Multi-stakeholder model would be advantageous. We often find that Governments do not always find solutions to problems, some of which are complex problems. Think of the multi-stakeholder process as a process of consulting Stakeholders who are experts in their own respective sphere. Governments get to have varied expertise leading to creative solutions to problems that they are either unable to solve, or ineffectively resolve. > > Sivasubramanian M > > Sivasubramanian M > +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 > > > > On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:19 AM, David Allen wrote: > Ah yes, you complain that, after elections, only those elected make choices. Though of course, those who did the electing did make a choice, of their representatives, in the first place ... > > But you imagine some evolution to a model where anyone who shows up has a place - and those who do not, of course, well too bad for them ... Hmmm ... > > In the first case, there is opportunity for the masses to speak through the ballot box. And for the second place, you will arrange for a table with 7 billion places at it? And arrange to get everyone there? So, since there is no ballot box, they can speak? > > Or, you prefer CJ Leung's [Hong Kong] approach, where we 'don't want to be representing the poor folk'? So ceding power to the powerful? > > David > > > On Oct 24, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > > It is not fair to say that the Multistakeholder model restricts participation. In fact the opposite is true because this new model has a working framework in place for bringing in participants other than elected representatives and appointed functionaries ( would not be very wrong to class these them both under "Government") to the table. And it is too early in the evolutionary phase of multistakeholder model to draw a conclusion that the participating stakeholders ​​​are not representative enough. > > The contrary of what you said is true. By its definition, by its intentions, and by the framework already in place, Multistakeholderism DOES extend AND broaden the opportunity for EFFECTIVE participation. > > Sivasubramanian M > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this by putting the condition of “stakeholdership” > > > ​ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Sat Nov 1 03:57:09 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 15:57:09 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <068a01cff052$7706c2b0$65144810$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> <04dc01cfefd3$9bbff420$d33fdc60$@gmail.com> <1494443b7a8.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <068a01cff052$7706c2b0$65144810$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <639BB22E-1E89-4E72-8047-7140CA3B4E72@difference.com.au> On 25 Oct 2014, at 8:51 pm, michael gurstein wrote: > Well first of all by definition “those who contribute” are “self-selected”… they chose to contribute and were not selected by others such as organizations, community groups, nation states or whoever to contribute on their behalf… The ability to self-select does not imply that participants are not representative of anyone. For example I usually participate in ICANN and IGF processes as a representative of an organisation with several hundred dues paying members, and must from time to time face re-election. But in a sense I am still self-selected, as I could still participate as an individual if I wished, and I participate as a volunteer not an employee. > Demographically etc. they practically are an “elite” in that they are part of that extremely small sub-set of possible contributors who have the skills, knowledge, resources (including time/money) to contribute where others who might have a concern or might be impacted do not have sufficient skills, knowledge, resources etc. … But using the term 'self-selected elite' pejoratively becomes nonsensical iff you use it this broadly. Are you literally arguing that it is desirable for those who lack the skills and knowledge and resources to *directly* participate in policy processes? And even if we lower the barriers to entry, unless we lower them to practically zero, those who fully participate will always be somewhat of an elite in that sense. If we take ICANN for example, it is unlikely that we will get to the point at which a majority of the worlds population are even able to explain why the domain name system is. Now, we can all agree that it is a good thing if the interests of those who lack the skills, knowledge and resources to participate in policy processes are represented, and surely civil society participation aids that goal. And we can all agree that lowering the barriers to participation so that full participation is not restricted to those able to find funding from somewhere for travel if needed, requiring fluent English, sometimes requiring understanding of fairly complex communication tools, etc. But if we use 'elite' so broadly that it includes anyone able to find the time to understand the issues and spend time participating, then directly participating in policy processes will always be restricted to an elite, and using the term pejoratively is nonsensical. Regards David > > M > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 3:25 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Sivasubramanian M'; 'David Allen'; michael gurstein > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org > Subject: RE: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > How does 'those who contribute' equate to a self selected elite? > > On 24 October 2014 5:59:09 pm "michael gurstein" wrote: > > The issue is not of course whether there should be the broadest base of “consultation” possible prior to decision making (including “multi-stakeholder” presumably because those involved will have direct knowledge of the affairs under discussion). This is quite different from “governance” which includes processes of actual decision making—allocation of resources, determination of benefits and so on. Including corporate foxes (for example) to guard public henhouses strikes me as an exceedingly bad way of proceeding. > > The issue is to whom are the decision makers ultimately accountable—in a Democracy, aspirationally to “the people”, in a MSist world to self-selected elite “stakeholders”. > > M > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf OfSivasubramanian M > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 1:06 PM > To: David Allen > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org > Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > Dear David Allen, > > It requires different variations of the Multi-Stakeholder model for​different purposes. For the purpose of Internet Governance, we have 700 seats in the room with 7000 participants in rotation, with 70 million others listening, which is sufficient. If we are extending this thought to the government of Nations or the World, then it would not be a replacement for Democracy, but an enhancement (or call it a Complement), in the sense that the Elected Representatives and the Appointed Functionaries would involve the rest of the people in day to day debates and decisions by using the Multi-stakeholder model. So, in a scenario where the multi-stakeholder model is extended to the larger arena of Governance, after elections, those elected would make choices by the multi-staekholder model. > > There is a positive, apolitical reason why Multi-stakeholder model would be advantageous. We often find that Governments do not always find solutions to problems, some of which are complex problems. Think of the multi-stakeholder process as a process of consulting Stakeholders who are experts in their own respective sphere. Governments get to have varied expertise leading to creative solutions to problems that they are either unable to solve, or ineffectively resolve. > > Sivasubramanian M > > Sivasubramanian M > +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 > > > > On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:19 AM, David Allen wrote: > Ah yes, you complain that, after elections, only those elected make choices. Though of course, those who did the electing did make a choice, of their representatives, in the first place ... > > But you imagine some evolution to a model where anyone who shows up has a place - and those who do not, of course, well too bad for them ... Hmmm ... > > In the first case, there is opportunity for the masses to speak through the ballot box. And for the second place, you will arrange for a table with 7 billion places at it? And arrange to get everyone there? So, since there is no ballot box, they can speak? > > Or, you prefer CJ Leung's [Hong Kong] approach, where we 'don't want to be representing the poor folk'? So ceding power to the powerful? > > David > > > On Oct 24, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > > > It is not fair to say that the Multistakeholder model restricts participation. In fact the opposite is true because this new model has a working framework in place for bringing in participants other than elected representatives and appointed functionaries ( would not be very wrong to class these them both under "Government") to the table. And it is too early in the evolutionary phase of multistakeholder model to draw a conclusion that the participating stakeholders ​​​are not representative enough. > > The contrary of what you said is true. By its definition, by its intentions, and by the framework already in place, Multistakeholderism DOES extend AND broaden the opportunity for EFFECTIVE participation. > > Sivasubramanian M > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this by putting the condition of “stakeholdership” > > > ​ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Nov 1 05:57:04 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 10:57:04 +0100 Subject: AW: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> <04dc01cfefd3$9bbff420$d33fdc60$@gmail.com> <3F314044-822E-4B6F-BDA7-A82F0CB3671C@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016427D7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> David: Remember the old joke about democracy being two foxes and a chicken voting on lunch. It is far more difficult to get consensus from the chicken. Wolfgang: Here is another joke from the good old times which is a Little better for the chicken: A chicken proposes a Joint Venture to a pig: "Lets ´start a "ham-and-egg-business". I give the eggs and you the ham :-))) w -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Nov 1 13:32:20 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 18:32:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] IG & EU Council References: <54533A1E.7030302@apc.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016427E3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141031_enhanced_confusion_european_council_and_governance_of_the_internet/ 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 bzs at world.std.com Sat Nov 1 13:35:28 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 13:35:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <1496881fdf0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> <21583.61688.286480.255502@world.std.com> <5450C671.4080302@digsys.bg> <21586.40289.268447.626242@world.std.com> <3DDD7908-830B-4D53-9824-737F2DC07553@digsys.bg> <1496881fdf0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <21589.6624.909407.558126@world.std.com> On November 1, 2014 at 04:49 suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) wrote: > Not strictly geographical either. RIPE covered a lot of North Africa > historically I would call that geographic, one can still draw a continuous circle around it spanning the Mediterranean. It wasn't haphazard certainly. Of course one could attribute other motives, that the "circle" mostly covers the non-black (dominant) population of Europe and N Africa. I suppose the real question is what was the question? -- -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 gurstein at gmail.com Sat Nov 1 13:42:43 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 10:42:43 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Principles (warning - long) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <297c01cff5fb$3e394210$baabc630$@gmail.com> Coming in late and agreeing with my JNC colleagues I'll add only a few points 1. "Openness"-I've discussed "openness" and its enemies in a rather lengthy series of blogposts and publications which I'm delighted to see being paralleled in a range of academic discussions on these issues http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/are-the-open-data-warriors-fighting -for-robin-hood-or-the-sheriff-some-reflections-on-okcon-2011-and-the-emergi ng-data-divide/ The ideal that these nerdy revolutionaries are pursuing is not, as with previous generations-justice, freedom, democracy-rather it is "openness" as in Open Data, Open Information, Open Government. Precisely what is meant by "openness" is never (at least certainly not in the context of this conference) really defined in a form that an outsider could grapple with (and perhaps critique). Rather it was a pervasive and animating good intention-a grail to be pursued by warriors off on a joust with various governmental dragons. Their armaments in this instance (and to an outsider many of them are magical indeed) are technical skills and zeal sufficient to slay any bureaucrat or resistant politician's rationalizations and resistances to being "open"-i.e. not turning their information treasure chests into universally accessible nodes in a seamless global datascape. If I seem a bit skeptical/cynical - less than true believing - its not because I don't believe in this goal of "openness" (who could be churlish enough to support things that are closed-closed systems, closed doors, closed minds-you get the picture), its just that I see a huge disconnect between the idealism and the passionate belief in the rightness of their cause and the profound failure to have any clear idea of what precisely that cause is and where it is likely to take them (and us) in the very near future. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/the-idrc-and-%E2%80%9Copen-developm ent%E2%80%9D-ict4d-by-and-for-the-new-middle-class/ It is hard (from this paper) to see how a commitment to "open development" or "open ICT4D" is much more than a commitment to further enabling the (already) enabled and empowering the (already) empowered. White Noise: On the Limits of Openness (Living Book Mix): Gary Hall http://www.livingbooksaboutlife.org/books/Open_science/Introduction 2. Transparency Thanks for your elaboration on the notion of "transparency and MSism", it is quite useful both for what it includes but rather more interestingly for what is not included. As I'm sure you know the notion of "transparency" is generally yoked with the notion of "accountability". This isn't simply for catch phrase purposes. "Transparency and accountability" are linked together because one is necessary for and supportive of the other. To have accountability you need to have transparency and the primary function of transparency is to lead to or enable accountability. The fact that you almost completely omit any reference to accountability in your exposition and give no clear indication of how "transparency" as you present it is actually linked to any structures of "accountability" is fatally indicative of a fundamental flaw in the approach to MSism you are presenting. It is great if MS process are fully transparent. But so what, for whom or why does it matter if I or anyone knows how decisions are made if they are being made by unaccountable (MS) elites/actors or through unaccountable non-democratic (anti-democratic) processes. Democracy, at least according to any document I've ever seen, is fundamentally about "accountability"-accountability of decision makers to those on whose behalf decisions are being, accountability to the broad public interest (rather than individual private interests-ever hear about conflict of interest laws), accountability to laws determining formal processes of decision making within democratic frameworks. "Transparency" is one of the necessary tools for achieving this "accountability". a tool towards accountability not an end in itself, which in practice would be and is a pointless and wasteful exercise of attempting to hide in plain sight. Transparency without accountability in a system of governance may quite correctly describe your experience of MSism in ICANN (from many reports this is quite accurate) and unfortunately may apply to many current formally democratic systems of governance but is this a "principle" on which you want to build your MSist governance sandcastle. 3. Consensus My JNC colleagues have I think quite correctly pointed to the absurdity of "consensus" as a governance principle. As they have pointed out such consensus is impossible in the real (policy) world and particularly where allocative decisions need to be made (where there are winners and losers). Rather than suggest what is in effect a procedural/technical aspect of decision making (there are an almost infinite number of ways of arriving at decisions including of course "consensus") I would have thought it perhaps more appropriate to agree on the principle that the outcome of the decision making processes should be decisions which optimize the public good. Unfortunately your "consensus principle" is a clear attempt to hard wire into Internet (and other?) decision making a process whose outcome inevitably and necessarily must be the optimization of private (stakeholder) interests. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of David Cake Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 3:22 AM To: Best Bits Subject: [bestbits] Principles (warning - long) So, Michael Gurstein challenges MSism proponents to describe its principles (Michael and JNC having generally taken the opposite tack, having principles aplenty but a lot of vagueness on practical/operational detail as to how those principles might be made into a practical transnational organisation). And I think it is worth doing to make a few points that I think clarify the debate. Sorry though, it is a long one. So, I will have a first pass at starting a discussion on the principles of MSism as we know it. These are just my thoughts, and I'm a relative latecomer to MS processes (having only been involved since 2009), and my experience is largely restricted to ICANN, so it is very likely that many of my assumptions are wrong The first is, that I think multi-stakeholder is a poor name for what we generally refer to as MS in the Internet governance context. Because having multiple stakeholders is an important characteristic, but certainly not the only, or perhaps primary, one. Multi-stakeholder of course serves well to highlight the difference between MS governance and multi-lateral forms (which really have only states as full participants, other stakeholders playing secondary roles), but calling ICANN, RIRs, etc multi-stakeholder obscures other significant factors, and so allows the confusion (notable in much JNC rhetoric) between open MS forms such as ICANN and closed forms such as WEF. So, one principle of MS governance that I think most CS participants in MS would agree on is openness to participation. ICANN, IGF, etc are open to effectively anyone who wishes to participate. I would argue that this principle of openness is more important than multi-stakeholderism per se - MS governance fora with formal stakeholders (like ICANN) would be regarded by many as the descendants of fora like the IETF that have no formal multi-stakeholder commitments, but that simply allow participation by anyone, regardless of their stakeholder affiliation. And this distinguishes such fora sharply from fora like the WEF, which are not open, and are rather strongly gatekeepered. I, for one, feel that the MSism I support has far more in common with the IETF etc than with WEF, because the broad openness of the process is an important principle, essential for its legitimacy and proper functioning. And of course it is not just private sector fora like WEF that have strict gatekeeping on participation, it is also multi-lateral fora such as the ITU. Whether the gatekeeper is government or private sector, both restrict the ability of CS and the broader populace to participate in their processes. I note that while the JNC certainly wants to broaden participation, openness does not appear to be a principle - in fact, a large proportion of JNC rhetoric is specifically critical of the inclusion of commercial operators, so JNC would appear to be opposed to openness as a principle per se. There are, of course, barriers to entry such as time to master the sometimes dense jargon, language barriers to non-English speakers, and travel to physical meetings, but one principle I would hope that MS proponents and JNC members can agree on is that while these practical barriers are non-trivial to overcome, it should be a goal of all such organisations to mitigate these effects. ICANN, for example, does simultaneous translation of many sessions, offers remote participation for almost all sessions, etc. Transparency is another important principle. Those of us used to operating in environments such as ICANN, IETF, etc are used to a quite high degree of transparency in its day to day operation, and I certainly think this is a principle most of us would agree on. This broadens access to decision making by those who are not able to fully directly participate, and serves as a vital part of the accountability mechanisms - as a participant, any word I say is something I might be called on to justify, and the positions I advocate are very open to those I claim to represent (in my case, the members of the organisation I chair and represent). The vast majority of ICANN related meetings I participate in are recorded, transcribed, and made publicly available - some also translated into multiple languages. This level of transparency should be the norm. And, of course, this is one of the contrasting distinctions with multli-lateral fora like the ITU, or multi-nation trade negotiations. The ITU is at least gradually changing from its culture of secrecy and restriction to a more open one, but this is a very recent and as yet fairly tentative change. And trade negotiations like TTTA and TTIP are becoming increasingly, obsessively, secretive and restricted, even between democratic nations - indeed, this secrecy is such that it clearly undermines democracy, for example in many nations elected legislators are not given access to treaty negotiation text. Now, I am sure that JNC members are opposed to the excesses of non-transparency such as the TPPA, but it isn't clear to what extent this is a high priority for the JNC, considering some members past support for the ITU in its more closed era, etc. It is, of course, worth noting that at times considerations such as individual privacy and security must occasionally demand processes that are less transparent (such as maintaining the privacy of individuals involved in selection processes etc), but the principle is that privacy should be a default. It is also worth noting that these two principles, openness and transparency, are closely tied. Admitting stakeholders with a strong interest in the outcome of proceedings (such as commercial operators) is acceptable (to me, anyway) if they must act in a transparent, on the record, manner, advocating the value of their ideas openly, rather than privately lobbying for them. History has shown very strongly that a process that is both closed and secret is very amenable to indirect involvement of commercial operators via lobbying. and that even when it is not so secret, but closed to permit only government participation, this still happens. And of course democratic nations are, if anything, often even more susceptible to private lobbying than non-democratic ones. It is also the case that if effectively anyone is able to participate in decision making, then opposing transparency is somewhat of a losing proposition anyway (anyone who wants to know can participate), but it is still important to commit to it as a positive value. And, of course, there is the principe of a commitment to consensus decision making. This is an essential principle of MSism to me. A commitment to consensus is a strong mechanism to encourage broad consideration of a wide range of viewpoints and criticisms. Policy that emerges from MS processes is certainly not perfect, but *absolutely terrible* policy seldom makes it through the process, which does not seem to be the case for IG related policy (or most policy, really) that makes it through elected legislatures. It is also worth noting that there are a great many subtleties in the exact definition of consensus used (ICANN identifies at least 5 within its processes, and there are several more being used in the IG space), and some may be more practical or desirable than others. And the JNC seems relatively hostile to consensus, noting that commercial entities have significant ability to hold back policy that they dislike, etc. and advocating strongly for majority voting mechanisms. The JNC would seem to strongly advocate majoritarianism over consensus - and while JNC rhetoric does support the rights of minorities, it is unclear what, if any, mechanisms would be used to prevent popular policies that attract but a majority vote but are unfavourable to minorities, or if this is considered desirable. It is also notable that the use of a voting mechanism requires identifying who gets to vote, and working out a voting mechanisms, and this is a non-trivial problem - and may perhaps be the origins of the disdain for voting in the IG space. The IETF does not vote in large part because there is no membership of the IETF, or limits to who is involved in its processes, so there is no obvious way to determine who is eligible to vote. The JNC is strong on advocacy of voting as a principle, but I have yet to see an explanation of how the considerable difficulties of determining franchise would be dealt with. I am certainly among those who feel that the UN/ITU '1 state 1 vote' system, extending as it does equal votes to states of widely varying size, and often wildly undemocratic themselves, does not really bear any significant connection to the principle of democracy. It would certainly be helpful if the JNC would make it clear whether they feel this sort of multi-lateral voting mechanisms satisfies their commitment to democracy as a principle or not. So, there we are, three suggested principles for CS support of MS processes. The TL:DR summary - Openness. Anyone who wishes to participate should be able to, without gatekeeping and minimising barriers to participation. Transparency. Meetings and decision making processes should be public and open to all who wish to participate by default. And Commitment to consensus. Not all issues may be resolvable by consensus, other mechanisms may be required where irreconcilable differences occur. But consensus processes should be pursued where possible, and are to be preferred to majority voting procedures. And my impression is that the JNC position: - does not favour full openness, wishing to broaden participation but prevent commercial entities from full participation. - favours transparency, but does not have as strong a commitment to this principle as MSism advocates. - favours majority voting (either direct or representative democracy) over consensus based processes. I am not trying to 'straw man' the JNC here - I'd love to be told that, for example, those JNC members who previously were OK with ITU restrictions on document sharing are now willing to commit to a position of strong advocacy for ITU transparency, or if some JNC members favour voting only in cases where consensus decision making has clearly failed, etc. But I think it is worth trying to highlight why those, like myself, who favour MSism are not simply 'hostile to democracy', as Michael would like to paint us, but are rather committed to a set of positive principles that is quite different to a simple embrace of any process with multiple stakeholders, and disagreement with JNC positions is based on a commitment to those broader principles. I'd also like to make it clear that, of course, advocacy of MS fora in principle does not mean that we do not have strong criticisms of them in actuality. I think ICANN, for example, has good rules on transparency - but its lack of good accountability structures means that it can fail on transparency at crucial points. And I believe that, while ICANN does try hard to be inclusive of those who cannot attend physical meetings, it could do a lot more and must constantly review its processes to see if they can be improved. Working out where there is general consensus on principles for improvement of existing fora would be useful. Regards David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bzs at world.std.com Sat Nov 1 13:44:36 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 13:44:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> <21583.61688.286480.255502@world.std.com> <5450C671.4080302@digsys.bg> <21586.40289.268447.626242@world.std.com> <3DDD7908-830B-4D53-9824-737F2DC07553@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <21589.7172.147989.372149@world.std.com> If one wants to pursue the "geographic region" line of reasoning then we have to note that Mexico, although located in North America, is a member of LACNIC. All these constructs are messy, though not overly so -- is the problem ARIN v. LACNIC, or Latin America v. North America? But it's still accurate that the five RIRs are defined as a collection of specific nation-states (a few exceptions, mostly territories etc) roughly within five geographic loci. -- -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 erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu Sat Nov 1 14:06:50 2014 From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 18:06:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Principles (warning - long) In-Reply-To: <297c01cff5fb$3e394210$baabc630$@gmail.com> References: ,<297c01cff5fb$3e394210$baabc630$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A367F8E30@UCEXLWP007.ep.parl.union.eu> The following is a chapter of a draft report on Ensuring utmost transparency -- Free Software and Open Standards under the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament. The RFC is closing in a week or so, feedback very welcome!. If you want to tweet: https://twitter.com/glynmoody/status/523060059098849280 //Erik The Constitutional Principle of Openness under European Law Parliament has Imposed upon Itself a Commitment to Conduct its Activities with the Utmost Transparency Rule 115 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament provides that "1. Parliament shall ensure that its activities are conducted with the utmost transparency, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 15 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union." The European Parliament has been a champion in promoting not only openness of the legislative process and the access to legislative documents, but also that the EU Courts should accept that openness constitutes a general principle of EU law, and that the right to information is as such a fundamental human right. In Netherlands v Council, the European Parliament argued as follows: In this connection, the Parliament avers that, whilst it is competent for the institutions to adopt appropriate measures for their internal organization with a view to ensuring their sound operation and the proper conduct of their procedures, the principle of openness of the legislative process and the access to legislative documents entailed thereby constitute essential requirements of democracy and therefore cannot be treated as organizational matters purely internal to the institutions. In this context, the Parliament adverts to the democratic nature of the Community legal order. It maintains moreover that the requirement for openness constitutes a general principle common to the constitutional traditions of the Member States which is also enshrined in Community law. Lastly, it argues that the right to information, of which access to documents constitutes the corollary, is a fundamental human right recognized by various international instruments. In its judgment, the Court stressed that the domestic legislation of most Member States enshrines, in a general manner, the public’s right of access to documents held by public authorities as a constitutional or legislative principle. The Court found that this trend "discloses a progressive affirmation of individuals’ right of access to documents held by public authorities" and that accordingly, the Council deemed it necessary to amend the rules governing its internal organisation, which had hitherto been based on the principle of confidentiality. The Court added that, "so long as the Community legislature has not adopted general rules on the right of public access to documents held by the Community institutions, the institutions must take measures as to the processing of such requests by virtue of their power of internal organisation, which authorises them to take appropriate measures in order to ensure their internal operation in conformity with the interests of good administration". While dated, this analysis is still interesting for at least three reasons. First, the legal doctrine is divided as to whether or not it is possible to interpret the Netherlands v Council judgment as authority for the existence of a fundamental right of access to documents.[6] Second, when interpreting Rule 115, the relevant legal question is whether or not internal rules of the institutions may confer a substantive legal right to access to documents, to information, and/or to data on EU citizens. Third, the Court clearly links the issue of public access to documents to the nascent principle of good administration. According to the case law of the Court, the purpose of the Community institutions’ internal Rules of Procedure is to organise the internal functioning of its services in the interests of good administration. The essential purpose of such rules, particularly those with regard to the organisation of deliberations and the adoption of decisions, is to ensure the smooth conduct of the decision-making procedure. It follows that natural or legal persons may normally not rely on an alleged breach of such rules, as they are not intended to ensure protection for individuals. Therefore, internal rules cannot be regarded as measures conferring on European citizens a substantive right of access to documents, to information, or to data held by the EU institutions. They are not intended to vest in European citizens a formal ”right to know” what is going on within the European institutions, which is a prerequisite in a participatory democracy, where decisions are taken "as closely as possible to the citizen”. In the absence of general rules on the right of public access to information or to data held by the EU institutions, European citizens’ ”right to know” and to participate ”as closely as possible” in the decision-making process must therefore be found elsewhere. As a preliminary conclusion, Rule 115 does not in itself confer any rights on European citizens. Nevertheless, as compliance with internal Rules of Procedure may constitute an essential procedural requirement, and may in some circumstances have legal effects vis-à-vis third parties, their breach can give rise to an action for annulment before the EU Courts. Indeed, procedural rules laid down in Rule 115 constitutes an essential procedural requirement within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and its infringement leads to the nullity of the measure thereby vitiated. In the light of the Court's judgment in European Parliament v. Council, that rule is an expression of the democratic principles on which the European Union is founded. In particular, the Court has already stated that the Parliament’s involvement in the decision-making process is the reflection, at the EU level, of the fundamental democratic principle that the people should participate in the exercise of power through the intermediary of a representative assembly.[7] Not only has Parliament imposed upon itself that it shall ensure that its activities are conducted with the utmost transparency, but its actions shall also conform with the Principle of Openness enshrined in the Treaties and in the Charter, and the Right of Access to Information in Art. 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). The Principle of Openness and the Right of Access to Information: A Basis for Imposing Free Software and Open Standards ? The first real step towards allowing the public a right of access to documents held by the Community institutions dates back to 7 February 1992 when the Member States signed the Final Act to the Maastricht Treaty.[8]. In Declaration No. 17 to that Act, the Member States pointed to the close connection between the transparency of the decision-making process and the democratic nature of the Community institutions. Nowadays, the principle of openness in European Union law has solid roots, as the very text of the Rule 115 makes clear, in the fundamental Treaties of the European Union. The Treaties Article 1(2) and Article 10(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Union (TEU) states that in the European Union decisions are to be taken as "openly as possible" and as closely as possible to the citizen. In this respect, Article 15(1) TFEU states that in order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, the Union’s institutions, bodies, offices and agencies are to conduct their work as openly as possible. According to the first subparagraph of Article 15(3) TFEU, any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing in or having its registered office in a Member State, is to have a right of access to documents of the Union’s institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies, whatever their medium, subject to the principles and the conditions to be defined in accordance with that paragraph. Moreover, according to the second subparagraph of Article 15(3), the general principles and limits on grounds of public or private interest governing this right of access to documents are to be determined by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, by means of regulations, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. In accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 15(3) TFEU, each institution, body, office or agency is to ensure that its proceedings are transparent and is to elaborate in its own Rules of Procedure specific provisions regarding access to its documents, in accordance with the regulations referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 15(3) TFEU. It should be noted at the outset that the General Court has held that Article 1, para. 2 EU and Article 255 EC did not have direct effect, and could therefore not form the basis of a request for disclosure of a document of an institution. The first provision was not regarded as "clear"[9], and the second was not considered to lay down an unconditional obligation, since its implementation was held to be dependent on the adoption of subsequent measures. [10] In a different strand of its case-law, the General Court has referred to the "principle of the right to information" [11], and to the "principle of transparency" [12], in support of a finding that the previous internal rules of access to documents of the institutions must be interpreted in the light of the "principle of the right to information" and the principle of proportionality. The issue has obviously divided the General Court, which has also stated: For the purpose of applying Article 4 of Regulation EC No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, the concept of a document must be distinguished from that of information. The public’s right of access to the documents of the institutions covers only documents and not information in the wider meaning of the word and does not imply a duty on the part of the institutions to reply to any request for information from an individual.[13] To date, no clear guidance on this issue has been provided by the Court. In Council v Hautala, the Court did not find it necessary to rule on "the existence of a principle of the right to information" in European Union law.[14] Based on this lack of clarity in the case-law of the EU Courts, in Pitsiorlas v Council and ECB, the ECB contested the very existence in EU law of a fundamental legal principle which provides for a general right of access to its documents and to those of the EU institutions. It argued that although arguments based on such a principle have been raised on numerous occasions before the EU judicature, none of the EU Courts has considered it appropriate to examine them. In its judgement, the General Court held that "even supposing that the right of access to the documents held by the Community public authorities, including the ECB, may be regarded as a fundamental right protected by the Community legal order as a general principle of law", the plea of illegality in respect of Article 23.3 of the ECB Rules of Procedure, based on the alleged infringement of such a principle, could not be upheld. The General Court pointed out that fundamental rights cannot be understood as ‘unfettered prerogatives’ and that it is ‘legitimate that these rights should, if necessary, be subject to certain limits justified by the overall objectives pursued by the Community, on condition that the substance of these rights is left untouched" [15]. The General Court held that, as regards the right of access to documents, reasons related to the protection of the public interest or a private interest may legitimately restrict that right.[16] Be that as it may. As Advocate General Poiares Maduro has correctly pointed out, the fact remains that henceforth the existence of the right of access to documents of the institutions is no longer based on internal measures adopted by the institutions, with which they are bound to comply, or even on Regulation 1049/2001, but on a provision of constitutional import.[17] The Court has in this regard clarified that the "principle of openness" stated in a general manner in the second paragraph of Article 1 TEU is "crystallised" by Regulation 1049/2001.[18] An alleged infringement of the second paragraph of Article 1 TEU is therefore in the Court's view not distinct from a plea alleging a wrongful application of the exceptions referred to in Regulation No 1049/2001. The existence of a "principle of openness" is confirmed by Art. 15 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which states "In order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall conduct their work as openly as possible." Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union Similiarly, Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000 (‘Charter of Fundamental Rights’) also acknowledges this right: ‘Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, has a right of access to documents of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, whatever their medium.’ Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), Article 15(3) TFEU and Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001 thereby establish a right of access to documents of the institutions. In the context of the European Parliament documents, it should be noted that Article 4 of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament[19] provides that documents and electronic records which a Member has received, drafted or sent are not to be treated as Parliament documents unless they have been tabled in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. As Advocate general Kokkot has noted, the documents relating to a legislative procedure which are in the possession of a rapporteur must in principle be regarded as being in the possession of the Parliament. It will at some point in time be necessary to decide whether Article 15 TFEU and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union allow such documents to be excluded from the right of access in the future.[20] Moreover, Art. 10 TEU regarding the principle of democracy (especially Article 10(3), echoes the second paragraph of Article 1) and Article 15 TFEU, dealing with good governance, openness, transparency and access to documents. Article 10 in the European Convention of Human Rights The development of the principle of openness in EU law has been accompanied by a parallell development of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. In Guerra and Others v. Italy, the Strasbourg Court held that freedom to receive information under Art. 10 of the ECHR merely prohibited a State from restricting a person from receiving information that others wished or might be willing to impart to him. It states that freedom could not be construed as imposing on a State, in the circumstances of that case, positive obligations to collect and disseminate information of its own motion [21] Similiarly, Társaság a Szabadságjogokért concerned a request for access to information by a non-governmental organisation for the purposes of contributing to public debate. Here, the Court noted that it had recently advanced towards a broader interpretation of the notion of the “freedom to receive information” and thereby towards the recognition of a right of access to information.[22] In a recent judgment of 25 June 2013, for the case of Youth Initiative for Human Rights v Serbia,[23], the Court unanimously recalled, in its reasoning on admissibility, that the notion of “freedom to receive information” embraces a "right of access to information". The judgment has, in our view correctly, been interpreted as having "established implicitly the right of access”, in that the notion of “freedom to receive information” embraces a right of access to information.[24] In a concurring opinion, judges Sajó and Vučinić highlighted the general need to interpret Article 10 in conformity with developments in international law regarding freedom of information, which entails access to information held by public bodies referring, in particular, to Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34 [25]. The Human Rights Committee has in turn stressed both the proactive and the reactive dimensions of the freedom of expression and freedom of information. Article 19, paragraph 2 embraces a right of access to information held by public bodies. Such information includes records held by a public body, regardless of the form in which the information is stored, its source, and the date of production. As the Committee has observed in its General Comment No. 16, regarding Article 17 of the Covenant, every individual should have the right to ascertain in an intelligible form, whether, and if so, what personal data is stored in automatic data files, and for what purposes. Paragraph 3 of the General Comment provides as follows: 3.Freedom of expression is a necessary condition for the realization of the principles of transparency and accountability that are, in turn, essential for the promotion and protection of human rights. Moreover, to give effect to the right of access to information, States Parties should proactively put in the public domain government information of public interest. States parties should make every effort to ensure easy, prompt, effective, and practical access to such information. In regard to freedom of expression, the Committee has linked it with the developments in information and communication technologies: 15. States Parties should take account of the extent to which developments in information and communication technologies, such as internet and mobile based electronic information dissemination systems, have substantially changed communication practices around the world. There is now a global network for exchanging ideas and opinions that does not necessarily rely on the traditional mass media intermediaries. States parties should take all necessary steps to foster the independence of these new media and to ensure access of individuals thereto. The principle of openness and the right of access to information are directed ‒ among other things ‒ at ensuring that decisions are taken as openly as possible and and closely as possible to the citizens, in other words, it is a basic democratic tenet, where citizens must see what happens within the institutions (which is one of the means through which accountability of the institutions and their agents is ensured) and the institutions have an obligation to at least listen to what citizens have to say (in other words, participation and representation of interests). [26]. Legislative Openness Ever since the Treaty of Amsterdam the concept of "the legislative" has had a place in the language of the EU Treaties. Under the second subparagraph of Article 207(3) EC the Council was already required to define "the cases in which it is to be regarded as acting in its legislative capacity" to allow the right of access to documents under Article 255(1) EC to be exercised. In the realm of secondary legislation, Recital 6 in the Preamble to Regulation No 1049/2001 states that "[w]ider access should be granted to documents in cases where the institutions are acting in their legislative capacity." The Treaty of Amsterdam enshrined both the right of access to documents of the institutions, on the one hand, and referred to the special consideration to be given to the ‘legislative capacity’ of the Council, on the other. It has been argued that , this indicated that the appropriate context for exercising the right of access was where the Council was acting in a "legislative capacity", thus acknowledging the close relationship that, in principle, exists between legislative procedures and the principles of openness and transparency [27]. On a comparative note, and despite the differences that may exist between national legislation and EU "legislation", or between Member State legislatures and the EU "legislature", the "legislative procedure" by which the Council and the European Parliament are bound, is conceptually very close to the national "legislative procedure", speaking from the point of view of its underlying purpose and thus the principles on which it must be based. In the end, they have in common the need to satisfy the imperative requirements of democratic legitimacy. As the Advocate General correctly pointed out in Case C‑280/11 P Council of the European Union v Access Info Europe [28]: "’Legislating’ is, by definition, a law-making activity that in a democratic society can only occur through the use of a procedure that is public in nature and, in that sense, ‘transparent’. Otherwise, it would not be possible to ascribe to ‘law’ the virtue of being the expression of the will of those that must obey it, which is the very foundation of its legitimacy as an indisputable edict. In a representative democracy, it must be possible for citizens to find out about the legislative procedure, since if this were not so, citizens would be unable to hold their representatives politically accountable, as they must be by virtue of their electoral mandate. In the context of this public procedure, transparency therefore plays a key role that is somewhat different from its role in administrative procedures. While, in administrative procedures, transparency serves the very specific purpose of ensuring that the authorities are subject to the rule of law, in the legislative procedure it serves the purpose of legitimising the law itself and with it the legal order as a whole." In its judgment in Sweden and Turco v Council,[29] the Court held that it is for the Council to balance the particular interest to be protected by non-disclosure of the document concerned against, inter alia, the public interest in the document being made accessible in the light of the advantages stemming from increased openness. It states that when the Council is acting in its legislative capacity, it is particularly relevant that openness be considered, given that it enables citizens to participate more closely in the decision-making process, guarantees that the administration enjoys greater legitimacy, and is more effective and more accountable to the citizen in a democratic system. The following Recitals in the Preamble to Regulation No 1049/2001 are relevant in this respect: "‘(1) The second subparagraph of Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union enshrines the concept of openness, stating that the Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen. (2) Openness enables citizens to participate more closely in the decision-making process and guarantees that the administration enjoys greater legitimacy and is more effective and more accountable to the citizen in a democratic system. Openness contributes to strengthening the principles of democracy and respect for fundamental rights as laid down in Article 6 of the EU Treaty and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. (6) Wider access should be granted to documents in cases where the institutions are acting in their legislative capacity, including under delegated powers, while at the same time preserving the effectiveness of the institutions’ decision-making process. Such documents should be made directly accessible to the greatest possible extent." The Court has confirmed that the considerations of legislative openness are clearly of particular relevance where the Council is acting in its legislative capacity: "Openness in that respect contributes to strengthening democracy by enabling citizens to scrutinise all the information which has formed the basis for a legislative act. The possibility for citizens to find out the considerations underpinning legislative action is a precondition for the effective exercise of their democratic rights".[30] The theoretical underpinnings of the Principle of Openness and of legislative openness has thus acquired a solid foundation in the Treaties and in the case-law of the court. However, due to the eternal tide wave and purported conflict between Openness and Efficiency, Parliament has in practice struggled to live up to the Principle of Openness by resorting to informal decision-making procedures. As Nikoleta Yordanova has correctly noted: [31] Traditionally, the parliamentary committees have offered important venues for political involvement of extra-parliamentary actors due to the openness and transparency of their meetings. In the past fifteen years, however, the EP has been resorting ever more often to informal decision-making, whereby the parliamentary decisions are not reached internally following deliberations and debate in committee and plenary but in secluded trilogue meetings of limited number of representatives of the three EU legislative institutions – the EP, the Council of Ministers and the European Commission. (...) The implications of the switch to an informal mode of legislating for representation in the EP are twofold – decreased input and, potentially also, output legitimacy. Specifically, the decrease in committee influence has curtailed the channels of representation of interest groups to affect decision-making, depriving them of an effective tool to monitor and shape the legislative process and outcomes by raising timely demands. A possible implication of this is diminished receptiveness of legislators to constituents’ interests. Moreover, the lack of transparency of the secluded inter-institutional meetings has limited the ability of constituents to monitor their representatives’ policy bargaining, positions and the concessions, and, consequently, to evaluate how responsive legislators are to their preferences and demands. The Need for Lawmakers to Deliberate in Private The European Union, the Member States and 19 other States are parties to the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (‘the Convention’), which entered into force on 30 October 2001. The Convention is based on three ‘pillars’ – access to information, public participation, and access to justice. Its preamble includes the following recitals: ‘Recognising that, in the field of the environment, improved access to information and public participation in decision-making enhance the quality and the implementation of decisions, contribute to public awareness of environmental issues, give the public the opportunity to express its concerns and enable public authorities to take due account of such concerns, Aiming thereby to further the accountability of and transparency in decision-making and to strengthen public support for decisions on the environment, Recognising the desirability of transparency in all branches of government and inviting legislative bodies to implement the principles of this Convention in their proceedings’. The second sentence of Article 2(2) allows Member States to exclude from the scope of the Directive bodies otherwise falling within the definition of ‘public authority’, ‘when acting in a judicial or legislative capacity’. The Convention was approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370, (3) the annex to which contains a declaration by the European Community (‘the Declaration’) which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: ‘In relation to Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention the European Community invites Parties to the Convention to take note of Article 2(2) and Article 6 of [the Directive]. These provisions give Member States of the European Community the possibility, in exceptional cases and under strictly specified conditions, to exclude certain institutions and bodies from the rules on review procedures in relation to decisions on requests for information. Therefore the ratification by the European Community of the Aarhus Convention encompasses any reservation by a Member State of the European Community to the extent that such a reservation is compatible with Article 2(2) and Article 6 of [the Directive].’ In ratifying the Convention on 20 May 2005, Sweden lodged a reservation which, in so far as is relevant, reads as follows: ‘Sweden lodges a reservation in relation to Article 9.1 with regard to access to a review procedure before a court of law of decisions taken by the Parliament, the Government and Ministers on issues involving the release of official documents.’ In accordance with Directive 2003/4,[32] public authorities must in principle be required to make environmental information held by or for them available to any applicant at his request. However, the Directive permits Member States to exclude public bodies acting in a legislative capacity from the definition of a ‘public authority’. In addition, access may be refused to certain types of document, or if disclosure would adversely affect the confidentiality of proceedings of authorities where such confidentiality is provided for by law. In her opinion in Flachglas Torgau, AG Sharpstone summarized the dilemma as follows:[33] The performance of both judicial and legislative functions could be impaired if information of all kinds concerning each and every stage of the process – analysing the relevant issues and data, deriving conclusions from that analysis and formulating a final decision – could be demanded of right at all times by any member of the public. It seems reasonable to assume that considerations of that kind were in the minds of those who initially drafted the first of the instruments concerned and have remained, albeit implicitly, in the minds of those who have participated in the drafting of the subsequent instruments. Yet it is by no means desirable, nor would it appear consistent with the overall thrust of the Convention or the Directive, for legislative or judicial activity to take place in impenetrable secrecy. It is generally considered necessary, in order to ensure the rule of law and democratic government, for both courts of law and legislative assemblies to operate in the presence of the public (or at least of the media as an intermediary) other than in wholly exceptional circumstances – and it is, moreover, generally accepted that such circumstances are more common in the course of judicial than of legislative activity. Other than in wholly exceptional circumstances, therefore, in neither case should decisions be taken on the basis of facts, or for reasons, which are concealed from citizens. ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday 1 November 2014 18:42 To: 'David Cake'; 'Best Bits'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: RE: [bestbits] Principles (warning - long) Coming in late and agreeing with my JNC colleagues I’ll add only a few points 1. “Openness”—I’ve discussed “openness” and its enemies in a rather lengthy series of blogposts and publications which I’m delighted to see being paralleled in a range of academic discussions on these issues http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/are-the-open-data-warriors-fighting-for-robin-hood-or-the-sheriff-some-reflections-on-okcon-2011-and-the-emerging-data-divide/ The ideal that these nerdy revolutionaries are pursuing is not, as with previous generations—justice, freedom, democracy—rather it is “openness” as in Open Data, Open Information, Open Government. Precisely what is meant by “openness” is never (at least certainly not in the context of this conference) really defined in a form that an outsider could grapple with (and perhaps critique). Rather it was a pervasive and animating good intention—a grail to be pursued by warriors off on a joust with various governmental dragons. Their armaments in this instance (and to an outsider many of them are magical indeed) are technical skills and zeal sufficient to slay any bureaucrat or resistant politician’s rationalizations and resistances to being “open”—i.e. not turning their information treasure chests into universally accessible nodes in a seamless global datascape. If I seem a bit skeptical/cynical – less than true believing – its not because I don’t believe in this goal of “openness” (who could be churlish enough to support things that are closed—closed systems, closed doors, closed minds—you get the picture), its just that I see a huge disconnect between the idealism and the passionate belief in the rightness of their cause and the profound failure to have any clear idea of what precisely that cause is and where it is likely to take them (and us) in the very near future. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/the-idrc-and-%E2%80%9Copen-development%E2%80%9D-ict4d-by-and-for-the-new-middle-class/ It is hard (from this paper) to see how a commitment to “open development” or “open ICT4D” is much more than a commitment to further enabling the (already) enabled and empowering the (already) empowered. White Noise: On the Limits of Openness (Living Book Mix): Gary Hall http://www.livingbooksaboutlife.org/books/Open_science/Introduction 2. Transparency Thanks for your elaboration on the notion of “transparency and MSism”, it is quite useful both for what it includes but rather more interestingly for what is not included. As I’m sure you know the notion of “transparency” is generally yoked with the notion of “accountability”. This isn’t simply for catch phrase purposes. “Transparency and accountability” are linked together because one is necessary for and supportive of the other. To have accountability you need to have transparency and the primary function of transparency is to lead to or enable accountability. The fact that you almost completely omit any reference to accountability in your exposition and give no clear indication of how “transparency” as you present it is actually linked to any structures of “accountability” is fatally indicative of a fundamental flaw in the approach to MSism you are presenting. It is great if MS process are fully transparent. But so what, for whom or why does it matter if I or anyone knows how decisions are made if they are being made by unaccountable (MS) elites/actors or through unaccountable non-democratic (anti-democratic) processes. Democracy, at least according to any document I’ve ever seen, is fundamentally about “accountability”—accountability of decision makers to those on whose behalf decisions are being, accountability to the broad public interest (rather than individual private interests—ever hear about conflict of interest laws), accountability to laws determining formal processes of decision making within democratic frameworks. “Transparency” is one of the necessary tools for achieving this “accountability”… a tool towards accountability not an end in itself, which in practice would be and is a pointless and wasteful exercise of attempting to hide in plain sight. Transparency without accountability in a system of governance may quite correctly describe your experience of MSism in ICANN (from many reports this is quite accurate) and unfortunately may apply to many current formally democratic systems of governance but is this a “principle” on which you want to build your MSist governance sandcastle. 3. Consensus My JNC colleagues have I think quite correctly pointed to the absurdity of “consensus” as a governance principle. As they have pointed out such consensus is impossible in the real (policy) world and particularly where allocative decisions need to be made (where there are winners and losers). Rather than suggest what is in effect a procedural/technical aspect of decision making (there are an almost infinite number of ways of arriving at decisions including of course “consensus”) I would have thought it perhaps more appropriate to agree on the principle that the outcome of the decision making processes should be decisions which optimize the public good. Unfortunately your “consensus principle” is a clear attempt to hard wire into Internet (and other?) decision making a process whose outcome inevitably and necessarily must be the optimization of private (stakeholder) interests. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of David Cake Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 3:22 AM To: Best Bits Subject: [bestbits] Principles (warning - long) So, Michael Gurstein challenges MSism proponents to describe its principles (Michael and JNC having generally taken the opposite tack, having principles aplenty but a lot of vagueness on practical/operational detail as to how those principles might be made into a practical transnational organisation). And I think it is worth doing to make a few points that I think clarify the debate. Sorry though, it is a long one. So, I will have a first pass at starting a discussion on the principles of MSism as we know it. These are just my thoughts, and I'm a relative latecomer to MS processes (having only been involved since 2009), and my experience is largely restricted to ICANN, so it is very likely that many of my assumptions are wrong The first is, that I think multi-stakeholder is a poor name for what we generally refer to as MS in the Internet governance context. Because having multiple stakeholders is an important characteristic, but certainly not the only, or perhaps primary, one. Multi-stakeholder of course serves well to highlight the difference between MS governance and multi-lateral forms (which really have only states as full participants, other stakeholders playing secondary roles), but calling ICANN, RIRs, etc multi-stakeholder obscures other significant factors, and so allows the confusion (notable in much JNC rhetoric) between open MS forms such as ICANN and closed forms such as WEF. So, one principle of MS governance that I think most CS participants in MS would agree on is openness to participation. ICANN, IGF, etc are open to effectively anyone who wishes to participate. I would argue that this principle of openness is more important than multi-stakeholderism per se - MS governance fora with formal stakeholders (like ICANN) would be regarded by many as the descendants of fora like the IETF that have no formal multi-stakeholder commitments, but that simply allow participation by anyone, regardless of their stakeholder affiliation. And this distinguishes such fora sharply from fora like the WEF, which are not open, and are rather strongly gatekeepered. I, for one, feel that the MSism I support has far more in common with the IETF etc than with WEF, because the broad openness of the process is an important principle, essential for its legitimacy and proper functioning. And of course it is not just private sector fora like WEF that have strict gatekeeping on participation, it is also multi-lateral fora such as the ITU. Whether the gatekeeper is government or private sector, both restrict the ability of CS and the broader populace to participate in their processes. I note that while the JNC certainly wants to broaden participation, openness does not appear to be a principle - in fact, a large proportion of JNC rhetoric is specifically critical of the inclusion of commercial operators, so JNC would appear to be opposed to openness as a principle per se. There are, of course, barriers to entry such as time to master the sometimes dense jargon, language barriers to non-English speakers, and travel to physical meetings, but one principle I would hope that MS proponents and JNC members can agree on is that while these practical barriers are non-trivial to overcome, it should be a goal of all such organisations to mitigate these effects. ICANN, for example, does simultaneous translation of many sessions, offers remote participation for almost all sessions, etc. Transparency is another important principle. Those of us used to operating in environments such as ICANN, IETF, etc are used to a quite high degree of transparency in its day to day operation, and I certainly think this is a principle most of us would agree on. This broadens access to decision making by those who are not able to fully directly participate, and serves as a vital part of the accountability mechanisms - as a participant, any word I say is something I might be called on to justify, and the positions I advocate are very open to those I claim to represent (in my case, the members of the organisation I chair and represent). The vast majority of ICANN related meetings I participate in are recorded, transcribed, and made publicly available - some also translated into multiple languages. This level of transparency should be the norm. And, of course, this is one of the contrasting distinctions with multli-lateral fora like the ITU, or multi-nation trade negotiations. The ITU is at least gradually changing from its culture of secrecy and restriction to a more open one, but this is a very recent and as yet fairly tentative change. And trade negotiations like TTTA and TTIP are becoming increasingly, obsessively, secretive and restricted, even between democratic nations - indeed, this secrecy is such that it clearly undermines democracy, for example in many nations elected legislators are not given access to treaty negotiation text. Now, I am sure that JNC members are opposed to the excesses of non-transparency such as the TPPA, but it isn't clear to what extent this is a high priority for the JNC, considering some members past support for the ITU in its more closed era, etc. It is, of course, worth noting that at times considerations such as individual privacy and security must occasionally demand processes that are less transparent (such as maintaining the privacy of individuals involved in selection processes etc), but the principle is that privacy should be a default. It is also worth noting that these two principles, openness and transparency, are closely tied. Admitting stakeholders with a strong interest in the outcome of proceedings (such as commercial operators) is acceptable (to me, anyway) if they must act in a transparent, on the record, manner, advocating the value of their ideas openly, rather than privately lobbying for them. History has shown very strongly that a process that is both closed and secret is very amenable to indirect involvement of commercial operators via lobbying. and that even when it is not so secret, but closed to permit only government participation, this still happens. And of course democratic nations are, if anything, often even more susceptible to private lobbying than non-democratic ones. It is also the case that if effectively anyone is able to participate in decision making, then opposing transparency is somewhat of a losing proposition anyway (anyone who wants to know can participate), but it is still important to commit to it as a positive value. And, of course, there is the principe of a commitment to consensus decision making. This is an essential principle of MSism to me. A commitment to consensus is a strong mechanism to encourage broad consideration of a wide range of viewpoints and criticisms. Policy that emerges from MS processes is certainly not perfect, but *absolutely terrible* policy seldom makes it through the process, which does not seem to be the case for IG related policy (or most policy, really) that makes it through elected legislatures. It is also worth noting that there are a great many subtleties in the exact definition of consensus used (ICANN identifies at least 5 within its processes, and there are several more being used in the IG space), and some may be more practical or desirable than others. And the JNC seems relatively hostile to consensus, noting that commercial entities have significant ability to hold back policy that they dislike, etc. and advocating strongly for majority voting mechanisms. The JNC would seem to strongly advocate majoritarianism over consensus - and while JNC rhetoric does support the rights of minorities, it is unclear what, if any, mechanisms would be used to prevent popular policies that attract but a majority vote but are unfavourable to minorities, or if this is considered desirable. It is also notable that the use of a voting mechanism requires identifying who gets to vote, and working out a voting mechanisms, and this is a non-trivial problem - and may perhaps be the origins of the disdain for voting in the IG space. The IETF does not vote in large part because there is no membership of the IETF, or limits to who is involved in its processes, so there is no obvious way to determine who is eligible to vote. The JNC is strong on advocacy of voting as a principle, but I have yet to see an explanation of how the considerable difficulties of determining franchise would be dealt with. I am certainly among those who feel that the UN/ITU '1 state 1 vote' system, extending as it does equal votes to states of widely varying size, and often wildly undemocratic themselves, does not really bear any significant connection to the principle of democracy. It would certainly be helpful if the JNC would make it clear whether they feel this sort of multi-lateral voting mechanisms satisfies their commitment to democracy as a principle or not. So, there we are, three suggested principles for CS support of MS processes. The TL:DR summary - Openness. Anyone who wishes to participate should be able to, without gatekeeping and minimising barriers to participation. Transparency. Meetings and decision making processes should be public and open to all who wish to participate by default. And Commitment to consensus. Not all issues may be resolvable by consensus, other mechanisms may be required where irreconcilable differences occur. But consensus processes should be pursued where possible, and are to be preferred to majority voting procedures. And my impression is that the JNC position: - does not favour full openness, wishing to broaden participation but prevent commercial entities from full participation. - favours transparency, but does not have as strong a commitment to this principle as MSism advocates. - favours majority voting (either direct or representative democracy) over consensus based processes. I am not trying to 'straw man' the JNC here - I'd love to be told that, for example, those JNC members who previously were OK with ITU restrictions on document sharing are now willing to commit to a position of strong advocacy for ITU transparency, or if some JNC members favour voting only in cases where consensus decision making has clearly failed, etc. But I think it is worth trying to highlight why those, like myself, who favour MSism are not simply 'hostile to democracy', as Michael would like to paint us, but are rather committed to a set of positive principles that is quite different to a simple embrace of any process with multiple stakeholders, and disagreement with JNC positions is based on a commitment to those broader principles. I'd also like to make it clear that, of course, advocacy of MS fora in principle does not mean that we do not have strong criticisms of them in actuality. I think ICANN, for example, has good rules on transparency - but its lack of good accountability structures means that it can fail on transparency at crucial points. And I believe that, while ICANN does try hard to be inclusive of those who cannot attend physical meetings, it could do a lot more and must constantly review its processes to see if they can be improved. Working out where there is general consensus on principles for improvement of existing fora would be useful. Regards David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Nov 1 14:22:50 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 11:22:50 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <3F314044-822E-4B6F-BDA7-A82F0CB3671C@difference.com.au> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> <04dc01cfefd3$9bbff420$d33fdc60$@gmail.com> <3F314044-822E-4B6F-BDA7-A82F0CB3671C@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <29a601cff600$d901a3f0$8b04ebd0$@gmail.com> As a matter of fact I do think that democratic decision making processes should take into account the outcome of MS (and other) consultations but should ultimately decide matters of public policy on the basis of the broad public interest. Don’t you agree? M From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 12:33 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Sivasubramanian M; David Allen; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 25 Oct 2014, at 5:43 am, michael gurstein wrote: The issue is not of course whether there should be the broadest base of “consultation” possible prior to decision making (including “multi-stakeholder” presumably because those involved will have direct knowledge of the affairs under discussion). This is quite different from “governance” which includes processes of actual decision making—allocation of resources, determination of benefits and so on. So, if there has been a broad multi-stakeholder process, that includes civil society, government, representatives of minorities etc that has achieved consensus between all of them - you think a policy that was strongly disagreed with by civil society, business, many minority groups, should be overruled if a simple majority of elected representatives vote for it? (setting aside the practical issues of creating a transnational group of elected representatives etc just for the moment) Including corporate foxes (for example) to guard public henhouses strikes me as an exceedingly bad way of proceeding. But, of course, any decision making that only includes the foxes would not be multi-stakeholder. Remember the old joke about democracy being two foxes and a chicken voting on lunch. It is far more difficult to get consensus from the chicken. Cheers David The issue is to whom are the decision makers ultimately accountable—in a Democracy, aspirationally to “the people”, in a MSist world to self-selected elite “stakeholders”. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf OfSivasubramanian M Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 1:06 PM To: David Allen Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations Dear David Allen, It requires different variations of the Multi-Stakeholder model for​different purposes. For the purpose of Internet Governance, we have 700 seats in the room with 7000 participants in rotation, with 70 million others listening, which is sufficient. If we are extending this thought to the government of Nations or the World, then it would not be a replacement for Democracy, but an enhancement (or call it a Complement), in the sense that the Elected Representatives and the Appointed Functionaries would involve the rest of the people in day to day debates and decisions by using the Multi-stakeholder model. So, in a scenario where the multi-stakeholder model is extended to the larger arena of Governance, after elections, those elected would make choices by the multi-staekholder model. There is a positive, apolitical reason why Multi-stakeholder model would be advantageous. We often find that Governments do not always find solutions to problems, some of which are complex problems. Think of the multi-stakeholder process as a process of consulting Stakeholders who are experts in their own respective sphere. Governments get to have varied expertise leading to creative solutions to problems that they are either unable to solve, or ineffectively resolve. Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:19 AM, David Allen < David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote: Ah yes, you complain that, after elections, only those elected make choices. Though of course, those who did the electing did make a choice, of their representatives, in the first place ... But you imagine some evolution to a model where anyone who shows up has a place - and those who do not, of course, well too bad for them ... Hmmm ... In the first case, there is opportunity for the masses to speak through the ballot box. And for the second place, you will arrange for a table with 7 billion places at it? And arrange to get everyone there? So, since there is no ballot box, they can speak? Or, you prefer CJ Leung's [Hong Kong] approach, where we 'don't want to be representing the poor folk'? So ceding power to the powerful? David On Oct 24, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Sivasubramanian M < isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: It is not fair to say that the Multistakeholder model restricts participation. In fact the opposite is true because this new model has a working framework in place for bringing in participants other than elected representatives and appointed functionaries ( would not be very wrong to class these them both under "Government") to the table. And it is too early in the evolutionary phase of multistakeholder model to draw a conclusion that the participating stakeholders ​​​are not representative enough. The contrary of what you said is true. By its definition, by its intentions, and by the framework already in place, Multistakeholderism DOES extend AND broaden the opportunity for EFFECTIVE participation. Sivasubramanian M On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein < gurstein at gmail.com> wrote: MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this by putting the condition of “stakeholdership” ​ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Nov 1 14:22:50 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 11:22:50 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <639BB22E-1E89-4E72-8047-7140CA3B4E72@difference.com.au> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> <04dc01cfefd3$9bbff420$d33fdc60$@gmail.com> <1494443b7a8.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <068a01cff052$7706c2b0$65144810$@gmail.com> <639BB22E-1E89-4E72-8047-7140CA3B4E72@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <29ab01cff600$da5b6790$8f1236b0$@gmail.com> David, It is actually rather simple… You either have as your aspirational fundamental principle of governance—“Democracy” i.e. the rule of and for the people or something else, as in your case MSism as the rule of and for unaccountable (at your urging I’ll replace “self-selected” with the commensurable term “unaccountable”), “self” interested elites/stakeholders. You either try to reform existing systems to become more democratic (including finding ways of ensuring that the range of non-elite voices are part of governance processes) or you look for ways of replacing less than fully democratic systems with unaccountable elite driven MS systems. So which side are you on? M From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 12:57 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Sivasubramanian M; David Allen; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 25 Oct 2014, at 8:51 pm, michael gurstein wrote: Well first of all by definition “those who contribute” are “self-selected”… they chose to contribute and were not selected by others such as organizations, community groups, nation states or whoever to contribute on their behalf… The ability to self-select does not imply that participants are not representative of anyone. For example I usually participate in ICANN and IGF processes as a representative of an organisation with several hundred dues paying members, and must from time to time face re-election. But in a sense I am still self-selected, as I could still participate as an individual if I wished, and I participate as a volunteer not an employee. Demographically etc. they practically are an “elite” in that they are part of that extremely small sub-set of possible contributors who have the skills, knowledge, resources (including time/money) to contribute where others who might have a concern or might be impacted do not have sufficient skills, knowledge, resources etc. … But using the term 'self-selected elite' pejoratively becomes nonsensical iff you use it this broadly. Are you literally arguing that it is desirable for those who lack the skills and knowledge and resources to *directly* participate in policy processes? And even if we lower the barriers to entry, unless we lower them to practically zero, those who fully participate will always be somewhat of an elite in that sense. If we take ICANN for example, it is unlikely that we will get to the point at which a majority of the worlds population are even able to explain why the domain name system is. Now, we can all agree that it is a good thing if the interests of those who lack the skills, knowledge and resources to participate in policy processes are represented, and surely civil society participation aids that goal. And we can all agree that lowering the barriers to participation so that full participation is not restricted to those able to find funding from somewhere for travel if needed, requiring fluent English, sometimes requiring understanding of fairly complex communication tools, etc. But if we use 'elite' so broadly that it includes anyone able to find the time to understand the issues and spend time participating, then directly participating in policy processes will always be restricted to an elite, and using the term pejoratively is nonsensical. Regards David M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [ mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 3:25 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Sivasubramanian M'; 'David Allen'; michael gurstein Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: RE: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations How does 'those who contribute' equate to a self selected elite? On 24 October 2014 5:59:09 pm "michael gurstein" < gurstein at gmail.com> wrote: The issue is not of course whether there should be the broadest base of “consultation” possible prior to decision making (including “multi-stakeholder” presumably because those involved will have direct knowledge of the affairs under discussion). This is quite different from “governance” which includes processes of actual decision making—allocation of resources, determination of benefits and so on. Including corporate foxes (for example) to guard public henhouses strikes me as an exceedingly bad way of proceeding. The issue is to whom are the decision makers ultimately accountable—in a Democracy, aspirationally to “the people”, in a MSist world to self-selected elite “stakeholders”. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [ mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf OfSivasubramanian M Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 1:06 PM To: David Allen Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations Dear David Allen, It requires different variations of the Multi-Stakeholder model for​different purposes. For the purpose of Internet Governance, we have 700 seats in the room with 7000 participants in rotation, with 70 million others listening, which is sufficient. If we are extending this thought to the government of Nations or the World, then it would not be a replacement for Democracy, but an enhancement (or call it a Complement), in the sense that the Elected Representatives and the Appointed Functionaries would involve the rest of the people in day to day debates and decisions by using the Multi-stakeholder model. So, in a scenario where the multi-stakeholder model is extended to the larger arena of Governance, after elections, those elected would make choices by the multi-staekholder model. There is a positive, apolitical reason why Multi-stakeholder model would be advantageous. We often find that Governments do not always find solutions to problems, some of which are complex problems. Think of the multi-stakeholder process as a process of consulting Stakeholders who are experts in their own respective sphere. Governments get to have varied expertise leading to creative solutions to problems that they are either unable to solve, or ineffectively resolve. Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:19 AM, David Allen < David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote: Ah yes, you complain that, after elections, only those elected make choices. Though of course, those who did the electing did make a choice, of their representatives, in the first place ... But you imagine some evolution to a model where anyone who shows up has a place - and those who do not, of course, well too bad for them ... Hmmm ... In the first case, there is opportunity for the masses to speak through the ballot box. And for the second place, you will arrange for a table with 7 billion places at it? And arrange to get everyone there? So, since there is no ballot box, they can speak? Or, you prefer CJ Leung's [Hong Kong] approach, where we 'don't want to be representing the poor folk'? So ceding power to the powerful? David On Oct 24, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Sivasubramanian M < isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: It is not fair to say that the Multistakeholder model restricts participation. In fact the opposite is true because this new model has a working framework in place for bringing in participants other than elected representatives and appointed functionaries ( would not be very wrong to class these them both under "Government") to the table. And it is too early in the evolutionary phase of multistakeholder model to draw a conclusion that the participating stakeholders ​​​are not representative enough. The contrary of what you said is true. By its definition, by its intentions, and by the framework already in place, Multistakeholderism DOES extend AND broaden the opportunity for EFFECTIVE participation. Sivasubramanian M On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein < gurstein at gmail.com> wrote: MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this by putting the condition of “stakeholdership” ​ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Nov 1 14:31:18 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 11:31:18 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <63D52A7B-B43D-48CF-B56D-B6AB0AEF5C2E@difference.com.au> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> <63D52A7B-B43D-48CF-B56D-B6AB0AEF5C2E@difference.com.a u> Message-ID: <29d101cff602$074a96d0$15dfc470$@gmail.com> However, when it comes to broader issues affecting broader public policy and the broader public interest such as for example–taxation policy and revenue distribution, censorship, and the application and enforcement of human rights–means need to be found to ensure the broadest possible inclusion in the mechanisms of governance if only on the basis of classical democratic principles. As well and perhaps of most importance as the Internet becomes the basis for more and more aspects of public life and civic engagement, the denial of principles of universal suffrage with respect to Internet governance is a denial of democracy itself. So let’s drop the terminology and conceptual apparatus of “Internet users” at least in the context of Internet policy and Internet governance. Rather let’s think about everyone as actual or potential “users’ of the Internet and everyone as being impacted either directly or indirectly by the Internet. Thus we are all “stakeholders” in Internet governance and we all should have the right to participate in the decisions which will impact on the future management and governance of the Internet — our common heritage and destiny. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/q-who-are-internet-users-a-everyone/ M From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 12:23 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Jeremy Malcolm; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 25 Oct 2014, at 2:19 am, michael gurstein wrote: As I pointed out in an earlier message MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this by putting the condition of “stakeholdership”. In iCANN processes, general users of the Internet qualify as stakeholders. While obviously it is impractical for someone who does not yet have access to the Internet to directly participate, there is no barrier to anyone who wishes to advocate for the interests of that group participating, and some do. There are no effective bars to participation based on the definition of stakeholder. This applies to most other MS bodies - for example, becoming involved with an IETF process is literally as simple as joining a mailing list. If you want to be involved in a specific process, you can. They are very open - far, far, more open than any government policy development process of which I am aware. And Michael, you should know this. Are you ignorant of this, despite having allegedly studied these institutions for years, or disingenuously lumping IG MS bodies in with the WEF etc again? You keep using 'self-appointed' as if it is a terrible thing. If the process is truly open, of course many participants will be self-appointed. You keep using self-appointed pejoratively - I'm taking from this that you want a closed process, in which all participants are gatekeepered (presumably by governments, or some other bureaucratic process?)? Regards David Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greek demos and kratos) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participatory. … Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”. M From: Jeremy Malcolm [ mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 11:13 AM To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 24/10/2014 11:03 am, michael gurstein wrote: As you and perhaps everyone well knows I have for several years both via these email lists and my blog been asking for a definition of “MSism”, each time getting a reply somewhat parallel to Gene’s trivial response “Yes, I am very busy making public declarations as appropriate on important matters. And I'm sure I and many others will address this issue when we see the right time and place to do so.” And I realize how important you are and how valuable your time is but surely since this has been a dominant meme and priority initiative for you and other elements of CS for several years some type of definition would be appropriate and surely sometime over those last few years there would have been a “right time and place” to give that definition! That's why I set up a fluid working group under Best Bits to develop such a definition, but there was not much participation (or maybe the LiquidFeedback software was too complex for people to be comfortable using): http://bestbits.net/lf/ So far, FWIW, this is the definition that has most support (Avri wrote it): Multistakeholderism: 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. with the following definitions of some included terms Equal footing: The recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all stakeholders, on the basis of equality and without discrimination, of the freedom to participate in multistakeholder processes. In Internet governance this is in line with stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities, which should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion. As with UN representation by governments, where all are equal regardless of size or wealth, contributions should be judged on their quality, and not by the number of people that a representative may claim. Notions of equal footing must take into account all aspects of capacity to participate, and must strive to enable full participation through capacity building and development agendas. Stakeholder: A term borrowed from Project Management. ” 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. “ and the derivative: Multistakeholder process: A form of participatory democracy where any person, alone or as part of a group, can contribute fully. -- 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 :: ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Nov 1 15:33:03 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:33:03 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Principles (warning - long) In-Reply-To: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A367F8E30@UCEXLWP007.ep.parl.union.eu> References: ,<297c01cff5fb$3e394210$baabc630$@gmail.com> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A367F8E30@UCEXLWP007.ep.parl.union.eu> Message-ID: <2a0701cff60a$a7935430$f6b9fc90$@gmail.com> Erik and all, I’ve always preferred the formulation of “open and inclusive”/”openness and inclusion”… http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/04/18/does-inclusion-matter-for-open-government-the-answer-is-very-much-indeed/ M From: JOSEFSSON Erik [mailto:erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu] Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 11:07 AM To: michael gurstein; 'David Cake'; 'Best Bits'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: RE: [bestbits] Principles (warning - long) The following is a chapter of a draft report on Ensuring utmost transparency -- Free Software and Open Standards under the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament . The RFC is closing in a week or so, feedback very welcome!. If you want to tweet: https://twitter.com/glynmoody/status/523060059098849280 //Erik The Constitutional Principle of Openness under European Law Parliament has Imposed upon Itself a Commitment to Conduct its Activities with the Utmost Transparency Rule 115 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament provides that "1. Parliament shall ensure that its activities are conducted with the utmost transparency, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 15 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union." The European Parliament has been a champion in promoting not only openness of the legislative process and the access to legislative documents, but also that the EU Courts should accept that openness constitutes a general principle of EU law, and that the right to information is as such a fundamental human right. In Netherlands v Council, the European Parliament argued as follows: In this connection, the Parliament avers that, whilst it is competent for the institutions to adopt appropriate measures for their internal organization with a view to ensuring their sound operation and the proper conduct of their procedures, the principle of openness of the legislative process and the access to legislative documents entailed thereby constitute essential requirements of democracy and therefore cannot be treated as organizational matters purely internal to the institutions. In this context, the Parliament adverts to the democratic nature of the Community legal order. It maintains moreover that the requirement for openness constitutes a general principle common to the constitutional traditions of the Member States which is also enshrined in Community law. Lastly, it argues that the right to information, of which access to documents constitutes the corollary, is a fundamental human right recognized by various international instruments. In its judgment, the Court stressed that the domestic legislation of most Member States enshrines, in a general manner, the public’s right of access to documents held by public authorities as a constitutional or legislative principle. The Court found that this trend "discloses a progressive affirmation of individuals’ right of access to documents held by public authorities" and that accordingly, the Council deemed it necessary to amend the rules governing its internal organisation, which had hitherto been based on the principle of confidentiality. The Court added that, "so long as the Community legislature has not adopted general rules on the right of public access to documents held by the Community institutions, the institutions must take measures as to the processing of such requests by virtue of their power of internal organisation, which authorises them to take appropriate measures in order to ensure their internal operation in conformity with the interests of good administration". While dated, this analysis is still interesting for at least three reasons. First, the legal doctrine is divided as to whether or not it is possible to interpret the Netherlands v Council judgment as authority for the existence of a fundamental right of access to documents.[6] Second, when interpreting Rule 115, the relevant legal question is whether or not internal rules of the institutions may confer a substantive legal right to access to documents, to information, and/or to data on EU citizens. Third, the Court clearly links the issue of public access to documents to the nascent principle of good administration. According to the case law of the Court, the purpose of the Community institutions’ internal Rules of Procedure is to organise the internal functioning of its services in the interests of good administration. The essential purpose of such rules, particularly those with regard to the organisation of deliberations and the adoption of decisions, is to ensure the smooth conduct of the decision-making procedure. It follows that natural or legal persons may normally not rely on an alleged breach of such rules, as they are not intended to ensure protection for individuals. Therefore, internal rules cannot be regarded as measures conferring on European citizens a substantive right of access to documents, to information, or to data held by the EU institutions. They are not intended to vest in European citizens a formal ”right to know” what is going on within the European institutions, which is a prerequisite in a participatory democracy, where decisions are taken "as closely as possible to the citizen”. In the absence of general rules on the right of public access to information or to data held by the EU institutions, European citizens’ ”right to know” and to participate ”as closely as possible” in the decision-making process must therefore be found elsewhere. As a preliminary conclusion, Rule 115 does not in itself confer any rights on European citizens. Nevertheless, as compliance with internal Rules of Procedure may constitute an essential procedural requirement, and may in some circumstances have legal effects vis-à-vis third parties, their breach can give rise to an action for annulment before the EU Courts. Indeed, procedural rules laid down in Rule 115 constitutes an essential procedural requirement within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and its infringement leads to the nullity of the measure thereby vitiated. In the light of the Court's judgment in European Parliament v. Council, that rule is an expression of the democratic principles on which the European Union is founded. In particular, the Court has already stated that the Parliament’s involvement in the decision-making process is the reflection, at the EU level, of the fundamental democratic principle that the people should participate in the exercise of power through the intermediary of a representative assembly.[7] Not only has Parliament imposed upon itself that it shall ensure that its activities are conducted with the utmost transparency, but its actions shall also conform with the Principle of Openness enshrined in the Treaties and in the Charter, and the Right of Access to Information in Art. 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). The Principle of Openness and the Right of Access to Information: A Basis for Imposing Free Software and Open Standards ? The first real step towards allowing the public a right of access to documents held by the Community institutions dates back to 7 February 1992 when the Member States signed the Final Act to the Maastricht Treaty.[8] . In Declaration No. 17 to that Act, the Member States pointed to the close connection between the transparency of the decision-making process and the democratic nature of the Community institutions. Nowadays, the principle of openness in European Union law has solid roots, as the very text of the Rule 115 makes clear, in the fundamental Treaties of the European Union. The Treaties Article 1(2) and Article 10(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Union (TEU) states that in the European Union decisions are to be taken as "openly as possible" and as closely as possible to the citizen. In this respect, Article 15(1) TFEU states that in order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, the Union’s institutions, bodies, offices and agencies are to conduct their work as openly as possible. According to the first subparagraph of Article 15(3) TFEU, any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing in or having its registered office in a Member State, is to have a right of access to documents of the Union’s institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies, whatever their medium, subject to the principles and the conditions to be defined in accordance with that paragraph. Moreover, according to the second subparagraph of Article 15(3), the general principles and limits on grounds of public or private interest governing this right of access to documents are to be determined by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, by means of regulations, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. In accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 15(3) TFEU, each institution, body, office or agency is to ensure that its proceedings are transparent and is to elaborate in its own Rules of Procedure specific provisions regarding access to its documents, in accordance with the regulations referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 15(3) TFEU. It should be noted at the outset that the General Court has held that Article 1, para. 2 EU and Article 255 EC did not have direct effect, and could therefore not form the basis of a request for disclosure of a document of an institution. The first provision was not regarded as "clear"[9] , and the second was not considered to lay down an unconditional obligation, since its implementation was held to be dependent on the adoption of subsequent measures. [10] In a different strand of its case-law, the General Court has referred to the "principle of the right to information" [11] , and to the "principle of transparency" [12] , in support of a finding that the previous internal rules of access to documents of the institutions must be interpreted in the light of the "principle of the right to information" and the principle of proportionality. The issue has obviously divided the General Court, which has also stated: For the purpose of applying Article 4 of Regulation EC No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, the concept of a document must be distinguished from that of information. The public’s right of access to the documents of the institutions covers only documents and not information in the wider meaning of the word and does not imply a duty on the part of the institutions to reply to any request for information from an individual.[13] To date, no clear guidance on this issue has been provided by the Court. In Council v Hautala, the Court did not find it necessary to rule on "the existence of a principle of the right to information" in European Union law.[14] Based on this lack of clarity in the case-law of the EU Courts, in Pitsiorlas v Council and ECB, the ECB contested the very existence in EU law of a fundamental legal principle which provides for a general right of access to its documents and to those of the EU institutions. It argued that although arguments based on such a principle have been raised on numerous occasions before the EU judicature, none of the EU Courts has considered it appropriate to examine them. In its judgement, the General Court held that "even supposing that the right of access to the documents held by the Community public authorities, including the ECB, may be regarded as a fundamental right protected by the Community legal order as a general principle of law", the plea of illegality in respect of Article 23.3 of the ECB Rules of Procedure, based on the alleged infringement of such a principle, could not be upheld. The General Court pointed out that fundamental rights cannot be understood as ‘unfettered prerogatives’ and that it is ‘legitimate that these rights should, if necessary, be subject to certain limits justified by the overall objectives pursued by the Community, on condition that the substance of these rights is left untouched" [15] . The General Court held that, as regards the right of access to documents, reasons related to the protection of the public interest or a private interest may legitimately restrict that right.[16] Be that as it may. As Advocate General Poiares Maduro has correctly pointed out, the fact remains that henceforth the existence of the right of access to documents of the institutions is no longer based on internal measures adopted by the institutions, with which they are bound to comply, or even on Regulation 1049/2001, but on a provision of constitutional import.[17] The Court has in this regard clarified that the "principle of openness" stated in a general manner in the second paragraph of Article 1 TEU is "crystallised" by Regulation 1049/2001.[18] An alleged infringement of the second paragraph of Article 1 TEU is therefore in the Court's view not distinct from a plea alleging a wrongful application of the exceptions referred to in Regulation No 1049/2001. The existence of a "principle of openness" is confirmed by Art. 15 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which states "In order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall conduct their work as openly as possible." Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union Similiarly, Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000 (‘Charter of Fundamental Rights’) also acknowledges this right: ‘Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, has a right of access to documents of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, whatever their medium.’ Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), Article 15(3) TFEU and Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001 thereby establish a right of access to documents of the institutions. In the context of the European Parliament documents, it should be noted that Article 4 of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament[19] provides that documents and electronic records which a Member has received, drafted or sent are not to be treated as Parliament documents unless they have been tabled in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. As Advocate general Kokkot has noted, the documents relating to a legislative procedure which are in the possession of a rapporteur must in principle be regarded as being in the possession of the Parliament. It will at some point in time be necessary to decide whether Article 15 TFEU and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union allow such documents to be excluded from the right of access in the future.[20] Moreover, Art. 10 TEU regarding the principle of democracy (especially Article 10(3), echoes the second paragraph of Article 1) and Article 15 TFEU, dealing with good governance, openness, transparency and access to documents. Article 10 in the European Convention of Human Rights The development of the principle of openness in EU law has been accompanied by a parallell development of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. In Guerra and Others v. Italy, the Strasbourg Court held that freedom to receive information under Art. 10 of the ECHR merely prohibited a State from restricting a person from receiving information that others wished or might be willing to impart to him. It states that freedom could not be construed as imposing on a State, in the circumstances of that case, positive obligations to collect and disseminate information of its own motion [21] Similiarly, Társaság a Szabadságjogokért concerned a request for access to information by a non-governmental organisation for the purposes of contributing to public debate. Here, the Court noted that it had recently advanced towards a broader interpretation of the notion of the “freedom to receive information” and thereby towards the recognition of a right of access to information.[22] In a recent judgment of 25 June 2013, for the case of Youth Initiative for Human Rights v Serbia,[23] , the Court unanimously recalled, in its reasoning on admissibility, that the notion of “freedom to receive information” embraces a "right of access to information". The judgment has, in our view correctly, been interpreted as having "established implicitly the right of access”, in that the notion of “freedom to receive information” embraces a right of access to information.[24] In a concurring opinion, judges Sajó and Vučinić highlighted the general need to interpret Article 10 in conformity with developments in international law regarding freedom of information, which entails access to information held by public bodies referring, in particular, to Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34 [25] . The Human Rights Committee has in turn stressed both the proactive and the reactive dimensions of the freedom of expression and freedom of information. Article 19, paragraph 2 embraces a right of access to information held by public bodies. Such information includes records held by a public body, regardless of the form in which the information is stored, its source, and the date of production. As the Committee has observed in its General Comment No. 16, regarding Article 17 of the Covenant, every individual should have the right to ascertain in an intelligible form, whether, and if so, what personal data is stored in automatic data files, and for what purposes. Paragraph 3 of the General Comment provides as follows: 3.Freedom of expression is a necessary condition for the realization of the principles of transparency and accountability that are, in turn, essential for the promotion and protection of human rights. Moreover, to give effect to the right of access to information, States Parties should proactively put in the public domain government information of public interest. States parties should make every effort to ensure easy, prompt, effective, and practical access to such information. In regard to freedom of expression, the Committee has linked it with the developments in information and communication technologies: 15. States Parties should take account of the extent to which developments in information and communication technologies, such as internet and mobile based electronic information dissemination systems, have substantially changed communication practices around the world. There is now a global network for exchanging ideas and opinions that does not necessarily rely on the traditional mass media intermediaries. States parties should take all necessary steps to foster the independence of these new media and to ensure access of individuals thereto. The principle of openness and the right of access to information are directed ‒ among other things ‒ at ensuring that decisions are taken as openly as possible and and closely as possible to the citizens, in other words, it is a basic democratic tenet, where citizens must see what happens within the institutions (which is one of the means through which accountability of the institutions and their agents is ensured) and the institutions have an obligation to at least listen to what citizens have to say (in other words, participation and representation of interests). [26] . Legislative Openness Ever since the Treaty of Amsterdam the concept of "the legislative" has had a place in the language of the EU Treaties. Under the second subparagraph of Article 207(3) EC the Council was already required to define "the cases in which it is to be regarded as acting in its legislative capacity" to allow the right of access to documents under Article 255(1) EC to be exercised. In the realm of secondary legislation, Recital 6 in the Preamble to Regulation No 1049/2001 states that "[w]ider access should be granted to documents in cases where the institutions are acting in their legislative capacity." The Treaty of Amsterdam enshrined both the right of access to documents of the institutions, on the one hand, and referred to the special consideration to be given to the ‘legislative capacity’ of the Council, on the other. It has been argued that , this indicated that the appropriate context for exercising the right of access was where the Council was acting in a "legislative capacity", thus acknowledging the close relationship that, in principle, exists between legislative procedures and the principles of openness and transparency [27] . On a comparative note, and despite the differences that may exist between national legislation and EU "legislation", or between Member State legislatures and the EU "legislature", the "legislative procedure" by which the Council and the European Parliament are bound, is conceptually very close to the national "legislative procedure", speaking from the point of view of its underlying purpose and thus the principles on which it must be based. In the end, they have in common the need to satisfy the imperative requirements of democratic legitimacy. As the Advocate General correctly pointed out in Case C‑280/11 P Council of the European Union v Access Info Europe [28] : "’Legislating’ is, by definition, a law-making activity that in a democratic society can only occur through the use of a procedure that is public in nature and, in that sense, ‘transparent’. Otherwise, it would not be possible to ascribe to ‘law’ the virtue of being the expression of the will of those that must obey it, which is the very foundation of its legitimacy as an indisputable edict. In a representative democracy, it must be possible for citizens to find out about the legislative procedure, since if this were not so, citizens would be unable to hold their representatives politically accountable, as they must be by virtue of their electoral mandate. In the context of this public procedure, transparency therefore plays a key role that is somewhat different from its role in administrative procedures. While, in administrative procedures, transparency serves the very specific purpose of ensuring that the authorities are subject to the rule of law, in the legislative procedure it serves the purpose of legitimising the law itself and with it the legal order as a whole." In its judgment in Sweden and Turco v Council,[29] the Court held that it is for the Council to balance the particular interest to be protected by non-disclosure of the document concerned against, inter alia, the public interest in the document being made accessible in the light of the advantages stemming from increased openness. It states that when the Council is acting in its legislative capacity, it is particularly relevant that openness be considered, given that it enables citizens to participate more closely in the decision-making process, guarantees that the administration enjoys greater legitimacy, and is more effective and more accountable to the citizen in a democratic system. The following Recitals in the Preamble to Regulation No 1049/2001 are relevant in this respect: "‘(1) The second subparagraph of Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union enshrines the concept of openness, stating that the Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen. (2) Openness enables citizens to participate more closely in the decision-making process and guarantees that the administration enjoys greater legitimacy and is more effective and more accountable to the citizen in a democratic system. Openness contributes to strengthening the principles of democracy and respect for fundamental rights as laid down in Article 6 of the EU Treaty and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. (6) Wider access should be granted to documents in cases where the institutions are acting in their legislative capacity, including under delegated powers, while at the same time preserving the effectiveness of the institutions’ decision-making process. Such documents should be made directly accessible to the greatest possible extent." The Court has confirmed that the considerations of legislative openness are clearly of particular relevance where the Council is acting in its legislative capacity: "Openness in that respect contributes to strengthening democracy by enabling citizens to scrutinise all the information which has formed the basis for a legislative act. The possibility for citizens to find out the considerations underpinning legislative action is a precondition for the effective exercise of their democratic rights".[30] The theoretical underpinnings of the Principle of Openness and of legislative openness has thus acquired a solid foundation in the Treaties and in the case-law of the court. However, due to the eternal tide wave and purported conflict between Openness and Efficiency, Parliament has in practice struggled to live up to the Principle of Openness by resorting to informal decision-making procedures. As Nikoleta Yordanova has correctly noted: [31] Traditionally, the parliamentary committees have offered important venues for political involvement of extra-parliamentary actors due to the openness and transparency of their meetings. In the past fifteen years, however, the EP has been resorting ever more often to informal decision-making, whereby the parliamentary decisions are not reached internally following deliberations and debate in committee and plenary but in secluded trilogue meetings of limited number of representatives of the three EU legislative institutions – the EP, the Council of Ministers and the European Commission. (...) The implications of the switch to an informal mode of legislating for representation in the EP are twofold – decreased input and, potentially also, output legitimacy. Specifically, the decrease in committee influence has curtailed the channels of representation of interest groups to affect decision-making, depriving them of an effective tool to monitor and shape the legislative process and outcomes by raising timely demands. A possible implication of this is diminished receptiveness of legislators to constituents’ interests. Moreover, the lack of transparency of the secluded inter-institutional meetings has limited the ability of constituents to monitor their representatives’ policy bargaining, positions and the concessions, and, consequently, to evaluate how responsive legislators are to their preferences and demands. The Need for Lawmakers to Deliberate in Private The European Union, the Member States and 19 other States are parties to the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (‘the Convention’), which entered into force on 30 October 2001. The Convention is based on three ‘pillars’ – access to information, public participation, and access to justice. Its preamble includes the following recitals: ‘Recognising that, in the field of the environment, improved access to information and public participation in decision-making enhance the quality and the implementation of decisions, contribute to public awareness of environmental issues, give the public the opportunity to express its concerns and enable public authorities to take due account of such concerns, Aiming thereby to further the accountability of and transparency in decision-making and to strengthen public support for decisions on the environment, Recognising the desirability of transparency in all branches of government and inviting legislative bodies to implement the principles of this Convention in their proceedings’. The second sentence of Article 2(2) allows Member States to exclude from the scope of the Directive bodies otherwise falling within the definition of ‘public authority’, ‘when acting in a judicial or legislative capacity’. The Convention was approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370, (3) the annex to which contains a declaration by the European Community (‘the Declaration’) which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: ‘In relation to Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention the European Community invites Parties to the Convention to take note of Article 2(2) and Article 6 of [the Directive]. These provisions give Member States of the European Community the possibility, in exceptional cases and under strictly specified conditions, to exclude certain institutions and bodies from the rules on review procedures in relation to decisions on requests for information. Therefore the ratification by the European Community of the Aarhus Convention encompasses any reservation by a Member State of the European Community to the extent that such a reservation is compatible with Article 2(2) and Article 6 of [the Directive].’ In ratifying the Convention on 20 May 2005, Sweden lodged a reservation which, in so far as is relevant, reads as follows: ‘Sweden lodges a reservation in relation to Article 9.1 with regard to access to a review procedure before a court of law of decisions taken by the Parliament, the Government and Ministers on issues involving the release of official documents.’ In accordance with Directive 2003/4,[32] public authorities must in principle be required to make environmental information held by or for them available to any applicant at his request. However, the Directive permits Member States to exclude public bodies acting in a legislative capacity from the definition of a ‘public authority’. In addition, access may be refused to certain types of document, or if disclosure would adversely affect the confidentiality of proceedings of authorities where such confidentiality is provided for by law. In her opinion in Flachglas Torgau, AG Sharpstone summarized the dilemma as follows:[33] The performance of both judicial and legislative functions could be impaired if information of all kinds concerning each and every stage of the process – analysing the relevant issues and data, deriving conclusions from that analysis and formulating a final decision – could be demanded of right at all times by any member of the public. It seems reasonable to assume that considerations of that kind were in the minds of those who initially drafted the first of the instruments concerned and have remained, albeit implicitly, in the minds of those who have participated in the drafting of the subsequent instruments. Yet it is by no means desirable, nor would it appear consistent with the overall thrust of the Convention or the Directive, for legislative or judicial activity to take place in impenetrable secrecy. It is generally considered necessary, in order to ensure the rule of law and democratic government, for both courts of law and legislative assemblies to operate in the presence of the public (or at least of the media as an intermediary) other than in wholly exceptional circumstances – and it is, moreover, generally accepted that such circumstances are more common in the course of judicial than of legislative activity. Other than in wholly exceptional circumstances, therefore, in neither case should decisions be taken on the basis of facts, or for reasons, which are concealed from citizens. _____ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday 1 November 2014 18:42 To: 'David Cake'; 'Best Bits'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: RE: [bestbits] Principles (warning - long) Coming in late and agreeing with my JNC colleagues I’ll add only a few points 1. “Openness”—I’ve discussed “openness” and its enemies in a rather lengthy series of blogposts and publications which I’m delighted to see being paralleled in a range of academic discussions on these issues http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/are-the-open-data-warriors-fighting-for-robin-hood-or-the-sheriff-some-reflections-on-okcon-2011-and-the-emerging-data-divide/ The ideal that these nerdy revolutionaries are pursuing is not, as with previous generations—justice, freedom, democracy—rather it is “openness” as in Open Data, Open Information, Open Government. Precisely what is meant by “openness” is never (at least certainly not in the context of this conference) really defined in a form that an outsider could grapple with (and perhaps critique). Rather it was a pervasive and animating good intention—a grail to be pursued by warriors off on a joust with various governmental dragons. Their armaments in this instance (and to an outsider many of them are magical indeed) are technical skills and zeal sufficient to slay any bureaucrat or resistant politician’s rationalizations and resistances to being “open”—i.e. not turning their information treasure chests into universally accessible nodes in a seamless global datascape. If I seem a bit skeptical/cynical – less than true believing – its not because I don’t believe in this goal of “openness” (who could be churlish enough to support things that are closed—closed systems, closed doors, closed minds—you get the picture), its just that I see a huge disconnect between the idealism and the passionate belief in the rightness of their cause and the profound failure to have any clear idea of what precisely that cause is and where it is likely to take them (and us) in the very near future. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/the-idrc-and-%E2%80%9Copen-development%E2%80%9D-ict4d-by-and-for-the-new-middle-class/ It is hard (from this paper) to see how a commitment to “open development” or “open ICT4D” is much more than a commitment to further enabling the (already) enabled and empowering the (already) empowered. White Noise: On the Limits of Openness (Living Book Mix): Gary Hall http://www.livingbooksaboutlife.org/books/Open_science/Introduction 2. Transparency Thanks for your elaboration on the notion of “transparency and MSism”, it is quite useful both for what it includes but rather more interestingly for what is not included. As I’m sure you know the notion of “transparency” is generally yoked with the notion of “accountability”. This isn’t simply for catch phrase purposes. “Transparency and accountability” are linked together because one is necessary for and supportive of the other. To have accountability you need to have transparency and the primary function of transparency is to lead to or enable accountability. The fact that you almost completely omit any reference to accountability in your exposition and give no clear indication of how “transparency” as you present it is actually linked to any structures of “accountability” is fatally indicative of a fundamental flaw in the approach to MSism you are presenting. It is great if MS process are fully transparent. But so what, for whom or why does it matter if I or anyone knows how decisions are made if they are being made by unaccountable (MS) elites/actors or through unaccountable non-democratic (anti-democratic) processes. Democracy, at least according to any document I’ve ever seen, is fundamentally about “accountability”—accountability of decision makers to those on whose behalf decisions are being, accountability to the broad public interest (rather than individual private interests—ever hear about conflict of interest laws), accountability to laws determining formal processes of decision making within democratic frameworks. “Transparency” is one of the necessary tools for achieving this “accountability”… a tool towards accountability not an end in itself, which in practice would be and is a pointless and wasteful exercise of attempting to hide in plain sight. Transparency without accountability in a system of governance may quite correctly describe your experience of MSism in ICANN (from many reports this is quite accurate) and unfortunately may apply to many current formally democratic systems of governance but is this a “principle” on which you want to build your MSist governance sandcastle. 3. Consensus My JNC colleagues have I think quite correctly pointed to the absurdity of “consensus” as a governance principle. As they have pointed out such consensus is impossible in the real (policy) world and particularly where allocative decisions need to be made (where there are winners and losers). Rather than suggest what is in effect a procedural/technical aspect of decision making (there are an almost infinite number of ways of arriving at decisions including of course “consensus”) I would have thought it perhaps more appropriate to agree on the principle that the outcome of the decision making processes should be decisions which optimize the public good. Unfortunately your “consensus principle” is a clear attempt to hard wire into Internet (and other?) decision making a process whose outcome inevitably and necessarily must be the optimization of private (stakeholder) interests. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of David Cake Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 3:22 AM To: Best Bits Subject: [bestbits] Principles (warning - long) So, Michael Gurstein challenges MSism proponents to describe its principles (Michael and JNC having generally taken the opposite tack, having principles aplenty but a lot of vagueness on practical/operational detail as to how those principles might be made into a practical transnational organisation). And I think it is worth doing to make a few points that I think clarify the debate. Sorry though, it is a long one. So, I will have a first pass at starting a discussion on the principles of MSism as we know it. These are just my thoughts, and I'm a relative latecomer to MS processes (having only been involved since 2009), and my experience is largely restricted to ICANN, so it is very likely that many of my assumptions are wrong The first is, that I think multi-stakeholder is a poor name for what we generally refer to as MS in the Internet governance context. Because having multiple stakeholders is an important characteristic, but certainly not the only, or perhaps primary, one. Multi-stakeholder of course serves well to highlight the difference between MS governance and multi-lateral forms (which really have only states as full participants, other stakeholders playing secondary roles), but calling ICANN, RIRs, etc multi-stakeholder obscures other significant factors, and so allows the confusion (notable in much JNC rhetoric) between open MS forms such as ICANN and closed forms such as WEF. So, one principle of MS governance that I think most CS participants in MS would agree on is openness to participation. ICANN, IGF, etc are open to effectively anyone who wishes to participate. I would argue that this principle of openness is more important than multi-stakeholderism per se - MS governance fora with formal stakeholders (like ICANN) would be regarded by many as the descendants of fora like the IETF that have no formal multi-stakeholder commitments, but that simply allow participation by anyone, regardless of their stakeholder affiliation. And this distinguishes such fora sharply from fora like the WEF, which are not open, and are rather strongly gatekeepered. I, for one, feel that the MSism I support has far more in common with the IETF etc than with WEF, because the broad openness of the process is an important principle, essential for its legitimacy and proper functioning. And of course it is not just private sector fora like WEF that have strict gatekeeping on participation, it is also multi-lateral fora such as the ITU. Whether the gatekeeper is government or private sector, both restrict the ability of CS and the broader populace to participate in their processes. I note that while the JNC certainly wants to broaden participation, openness does not appear to be a principle - in fact, a large proportion of JNC rhetoric is specifically critical of the inclusion of commercial operators, so JNC would appear to be opposed to openness as a principle per se. There are, of course, barriers to entry such as time to master the sometimes dense jargon, language barriers to non-English speakers, and travel to physical meetings, but one principle I would hope that MS proponents and JNC members can agree on is that while these practical barriers are non-trivial to overcome, it should be a goal of all such organisations to mitigate these effects. ICANN, for example, does simultaneous translation of many sessions, offers remote participation for almost all sessions, etc. Transparency is another important principle. Those of us used to operating in environments such as ICANN, IETF, etc are used to a quite high degree of transparency in its day to day operation, and I certainly think this is a principle most of us would agree on. This broadens access to decision making by those who are not able to fully directly participate, and serves as a vital part of the accountability mechanisms - as a participant, any word I say is something I might be called on to justify, and the positions I advocate are very open to those I claim to represent (in my case, the members of the organisation I chair and represent). The vast majority of ICANN related meetings I participate in are recorded, transcribed, and made publicly available - some also translated into multiple languages. This level of transparency should be the norm. And, of course, this is one of the contrasting distinctions with multli-lateral fora like the ITU, or multi-nation trade negotiations. The ITU is at least gradually changing from its culture of secrecy and restriction to a more open one, but this is a very recent and as yet fairly tentative change. And trade negotiations like TTTA and TTIP are becoming increasingly, obsessively, secretive and restricted, even between democratic nations - indeed, this secrecy is such that it clearly undermines democracy, for example in many nations elected legislators are not given access to treaty negotiation text. Now, I am sure that JNC members are opposed to the excesses of non-transparency such as the TPPA, but it isn't clear to what extent this is a high priority for the JNC, considering some members past support for the ITU in its more closed era, etc. It is, of course, worth noting that at times considerations such as individual privacy and security must occasionally demand processes that are less transparent (such as maintaining the privacy of individuals involved in selection processes etc), but the principle is that privacy should be a default. It is also worth noting that these two principles, openness and transparency, are closely tied. Admitting stakeholders with a strong interest in the outcome of proceedings (such as commercial operators) is acceptable (to me, anyway) if they must act in a transparent, on the record, manner, advocating the value of their ideas openly, rather than privately lobbying for them. History has shown very strongly that a process that is both closed and secret is very amenable to indirect involvement of commercial operators via lobbying. and that even when it is not so secret, but closed to permit only government participation, this still happens. And of course democratic nations are, if anything, often even more susceptible to private lobbying than non-democratic ones. It is also the case that if effectively anyone is able to participate in decision making, then opposing transparency is somewhat of a losing proposition anyway (anyone who wants to know can participate), but it is still important to commit to it as a positive value. And, of course, there is the principe of a commitment to consensus decision making. This is an essential principle of MSism to me. A commitment to consensus is a strong mechanism to encourage broad consideration of a wide range of viewpoints and criticisms. Policy that emerges from MS processes is certainly not perfect, but *absolutely terrible* policy seldom makes it through the process, which does not seem to be the case for IG related policy (or most policy, really) that makes it through elected legislatures. It is also worth noting that there are a great many subtleties in the exact definition of consensus used (ICANN identifies at least 5 within its processes, and there are several more being used in the IG space), and some may be more practical or desirable than others. And the JNC seems relatively hostile to consensus, noting that commercial entities have significant ability to hold back policy that they dislike, etc. and advocating strongly for majority voting mechanisms. The JNC would seem to strongly advocate majoritarianism over consensus - and while JNC rhetoric does support the rights of minorities, it is unclear what, if any, mechanisms would be used to prevent popular policies that attract but a majority vote but are unfavourable to minorities, or if this is considered desirable. It is also notable that the use of a voting mechanism requires identifying who gets to vote, and working out a voting mechanisms, and this is a non-trivial problem - and may perhaps be the origins of the disdain for voting in the IG space. The IETF does not vote in large part because there is no membership of the IETF, or limits to who is involved in its processes, so there is no obvious way to determine who is eligible to vote. The JNC is strong on advocacy of voting as a principle, but I have yet to see an explanation of how the considerable difficulties of determining franchise would be dealt with. I am certainly among those who feel that the UN/ITU '1 state 1 vote' system, extending as it does equal votes to states of widely varying size, and often wildly undemocratic themselves, does not really bear any significant connection to the principle of democracy. It would certainly be helpful if the JNC would make it clear whether they feel this sort of multi-lateral voting mechanisms satisfies their commitment to democracy as a principle or not. So, there we are, three suggested principles for CS support of MS processes. The TL:DR summary - Openness. Anyone who wishes to participate should be able to, without gatekeeping and minimising barriers to participation. Transparency. Meetings and decision making processes should be public and open to all who wish to participate by default. And Commitment to consensus. Not all issues may be resolvable by consensus, other mechanisms may be required where irreconcilable differences occur. But consensus processes should be pursued where possible, and are to be preferred to majority voting procedures. And my impression is that the JNC position: - does not favour full openness, wishing to broaden participation but prevent commercial entities from full participation. - favours transparency, but does not have as strong a commitment to this principle as MSism advocates. - favours majority voting (either direct or representative democracy) over consensus based processes. I am not trying to 'straw man' the JNC here - I'd love to be told that, for example, those JNC members who previously were OK with ITU restrictions on document sharing are now willing to commit to a position of strong advocacy for ITU transparency, or if some JNC members favour voting only in cases where consensus decision making has clearly failed, etc. But I think it is worth trying to highlight why those, like myself, who favour MSism are not simply 'hostile to democracy', as Michael would like to paint us, but are rather committed to a set of positive principles that is quite different to a simple embrace of any process with multiple stakeholders, and disagreement with JNC positions is based on a commitment to those broader principles. I'd also like to make it clear that, of course, advocacy of MS fora in principle does not mean that we do not have strong criticisms of them in actuality. I think ICANN, for example, has good rules on transparency - but its lack of good accountability structures means that it can fail on transparency at crucial points. And I believe that, while ICANN does try hard to be inclusive of those who cannot attend physical meetings, it could do a lot more and must constantly review its processes to see if they can be improved. Working out where there is general consensus on principles for improvement of existing fora would be useful. Regards David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bzs at world.std.com Sat Nov 1 15:29:33 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 15:29:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> <21583.61688.286480.255502@world.std.com> <5450C671.4080302@digsys.bg> <21586.40289.268447.626242@world.std.com> <3DDD7908-830B-4D53-9824-737F2DC07553@digsys.bg> <21588.23378.910700.805109@world.std.com> Message-ID: <21589.13469.249142.937652@world.std.com> On October 31, 2014 at 23:30 drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) wrote: > Barry, > > On Oct 31, 2014, at 9:02 PM, Barry Shein wrote: > > So to go back to the original point (not by you, what I was responding > > to): Stating that IP address allocation authority should not be > > "Westphalian" seems, I'll use the word again, disingenuous. > > In no way can IP address allocation be considered Westphalian, at least as I understand the term. The critical word was "authority", address allocation authority. I was just referring to the fact that the RIRs are defined as representing a set of nation states. I'm not sure where the dispute in that is, they define themselves on their web pages like this (earlier referenced.) With a few pragmatic exceptions (e.g., territories.) > In my view, IP address allocation authority derives from the acceptance of the network operational community to accept the authority of the registry system. Of course. All governance ultimately derives from the consent of the people etc. > > If you disagree, what do you think would happen if (say) the government of West Elbonia decided to "redistribute" 192.74.137.0/24 to themselves. My experience has been that ISPs care a bit more about contracts and getting paid than what some far off nation in which they have no customers might decide on any given day. They would have to get others to route it or else it would make little difference to me. At which point my complaint would be with those who agreed to route the address beyond Elbonia. But you can set up a NAT, for example, and use any address block on the inside that you like. Many use 10.0.0.0/24, the old ARPAnet block. No users are injured in the process. They could use my blocks and I doubt I would notice unless something was broken. I did once have an ISP of some size maliciously route my block to "punish" me (my company) for my detailing (naming and shaming) their flagrant and profitable support of spamming activities in public, providing resources to spammers. Fortunately a much bigger ISP black-holed their entire operation in response which resulted in a meeting of the minds. I am happy to report that the offending ISP went bankrupt a couple of years later. As Tarzan would say, "it's a jungle out there!" > > Nation-states have the ability to compel entities within their borders to do things they might not otherwise desire to do. In the context of IP address allocation, a nation-state can compel ISPs within that nation-state's borders to ignore the allocations of the registry system, however the impact of that action would mostly be to disconnect the nation-state from the Internet unless ISPs outside of the nation-state agree. This would be ... unlikely as it is a sure path to pure chaos. By and large, nation-states prefer not to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, so they haven't (to date) ignored the existing registry system, despite its numerous warts. Sure, we agree. > > Life might get a little more interesting with IPv4 exhaustion, but I hope not. It already has. > > > Perhaps stating a contrapositive is even more clear: Other than > > perhaps some small outlying islands or similar special cases no > > nation-state is split between two RIRs. Even the vast Russian > > Federation which spans two continents is entirely within only the RIPE > > NCC region. > > I believe the fact that the IEPG/FNC/IAB/RIRs decided to split up the planet on semi-arbitrary geopolitical boundaries was purely a convenience. It was not related to allocation authority. De facto and de jure have a way of converging after a while. > > Regards, > -drc > (ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself. Really.) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- -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 bzs at world.std.com Sat Nov 1 15:49:46 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 15:49:46 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <63D52A7B-B43D-48CF-B56D-B6AB0AEF5C2E@difference.com.au> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> <63D52A7B-B43D-48CF-B56D-B6AB0AEF5C2E@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <21589.14682.48398.981651@world.std.com> My questions about multistakeholderism are: 1. How does one become a member of a stakeholder coalition? Is it purely self-defined for each individual member beyond perhaps where they represent a collection of groups each with membership requirements? If I say I am a plumber and a member of the plumber stakeholder group do you just take me at my word (i.e., and let me vote or submit position papers)? 2. Can one be a member of more than one stakeholder group? I'd think one almost has to be. For example, I am an ISP so let's say a member of the ISP stakeholder group. But also an internet user, domain name holder, and occasionally hold up gas stations for extra cash so if they ever coalesce into a stakeholder group then them also though granted the internet interest in that activity is low. 3. Does #2 cause any structural problems? How many "votes" do I get? 4. What is the process for coordination among stakeholder groups? I think #4 is the big one, or maybe I'm missing something. I mostly understand how the United Nations acts as a coordinating organization among nation-states. They sit in a big room sometimes and vote condemnations of whatever nation-state they're displeased with at the moment and each don't have a lot of vested interest in. And of course all those wonderful things like WHO and Unicef and Les Caques Bleu and HRC etc. What would be the analogue for multi-stakeholderism and how would it be structured? Without a reasonably clear vision of that last point I don't know what I am being asked to buy into other than some vague hand-wave to set theory. -- -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 gurstein at gmail.com Sat Nov 1 18:09:23 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 15:09:23 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [OIA] Meanwhile, in Argentina In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a3301cff620$7f0c69a0$7d253ce0$@gmail.com> From: oia-bounces at lists.bway.net [mailto:oia-bounces at lists.bway.net] On Behalf Of Joly MacFie Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 6:09 PM To: Bruce Kushnick Subject: [OIA] Meanwhile, in Argentina http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/173442/gov A bill presented by President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner’s administration yesterday may change the country’s telecommunications sector for years to come. The broad measure appeasing long-held demands by the opposition declares information and technology communications a public service and establishes a broad definition of net neutrality, an issue that was discussed last week in a Senate committee. The so-called “Digital Argentina” bill, unveiled yesterday morning by Economy Minister Axel Kicillof, Federal Planning Minister Julio De Vido and Communications Secretary Norberto Berner, implies substantial changes to the 2009 Media Law as it opens the possibility for providers to offer “triple play” (telephone, cable and Internet) services. This reform would put Argentina in a similar situation to most of Europe and the Americas within the framework of technological convergence, even though conflicts could be raised in the near future regarding the winners and losers in this new stage of regulation. The aim of the proposed regulation is to “stimulate competition and put an end to concentration” in the telecommunications sector, Kicillof said during a news conference. For his part a private source from the cable and Internet market called the bill “a new stage in the battle against media conglomerate Clarín.” The government, meanwhile, framed the reform as important, declaring that telecommunications could hardly be considered a trivial issue. “We need new regulations in order to be able to access services that are considered human rights,” Kicillof said. TAKES ON EXCLUDED ASPECTS According to the dictates of the bill, the restriction on telephone companies to provide audiovisual services that was part of the 2009 Media Law will collapse. But the anti-monopoly limits set by the Media Law will continue, including the market share of 35 percent, a maximum of 24 districts for cable providers and 10 TV and radio licences as well as geographic incompatibilities. The proposed reform of the 1972 Telecommunications Law takes on part of the initial conception of the Audiovisual Communications Services Law (LDSCA), also known as the Media Law, which gave a green light to convergence with state monitoring in terms of costs and conditions for the telecommunications networks to be at the service of other providers. This goal was removed from the bill during congressional negotiations in order to obtain support from centre-left parties. At the time, lawmakers from the Socialist (PS) party and Project South said that the Media Law sought to favour the telephone companies — a position also defended by the Clarín Group, the country’s largest media conglomerate. The government gave in on this point in order to earn support from from these caucuses — but the law lost in terms of technological innovation and the emergence of competitive players. This discussion is provisionally resolved in Article 9, which clearly states what telecommunications licences “may be able to offer audiovisual services,” a permission that works the other way round since media licences will also be enabled to sell “telecommunication services” to subscribers. Specialists, however, agree that the latter option is less profitable and more complex. PUBLIC SERVICES The measure — which also guarantees the privacy of e-mail, regardless of the channel used — also takes on deregulation aspects first outlined by Decree 764/2000, a regulation passed during the Fernando De la Rúa administration. Should the law be passed, telecommunication networks will be considered “essential public services” and therefore allow the state to set minimum standards and maximum prices, a long-held demand by progressive lawmakers. The government may establish a minimum compulsory speed for all networks, a figure that will be updated every two years aimed at guaranteeing egalitarian access to quality services throughout the country. Another key aspect mentioned by the bill is the declaration of “net neutrality” and free access to information. A week ago, a net neutrality bill was cleared for debate in the Senate. The bill — which could be replaced by this new, broader bill — establishes that companies must ensure equal treatment for all Internet traffic. Yesterday afternoon, UNEN lawmaker Roy Cortina — who has presented in the past a number of bills to declare mobile services a public service — expressed his “serious doubts” about the official reform bill. “It’s a good thing that the national administration finally acknowledged this demand... but the government has been an accomplice of skyrocketing fees and lousy services provided by mobile phone operators,” Cortina said in a news release. Radical lawmaker Hugo Maldonado hailed the news but warned he was not going to “let the government surprise us again.” “Declaring mobile technology a public service means we may turn the page on this essential service,” Maldonado expressed. POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES If the proposal is approved by Congress: - Telefónica may be able to keep leading broadcast TV channel Telefe — a decision that the AFSCA media watchdog had failed to make in the past, despite Telefónica having filed its adjustment plan several months ago. Officials from AFSCA had already acknowledged the presence of the Spanish company in the broadcast market was at odds with the 2009 regulation. - Telecommunication companies may be able to offer paid TV services, with the restrictions set by the Media Law. Namely, Telefónica and Telecom would be allowed to offer cable TV services through its Buenos Aires network — but only as long as the former gets rid of the Telefé broadcast channel. - Mexican businessman David Martínez, the head of the Fintech Advisory fund who has just bought 17 percent of Telecom Argentina, may be able to keep his share in Cablevisión, Clarín’s cable TV company. ENCOURAGING COMPETITION Another central aspect of the government-sponsored reform is that it would declare Internet a public service. On the one hand, this enables the state to determine a final subscription price. On the other, this could allow other companies to use the network of already-established firms such as Fibertel in exchange for a fee, which can also be determined by the national administration. “This could mean hundreds of new providers may appear,” a source from the paid TV and Internet market told the Herald. (This is linked to the deregulation of the last mile, another key aspect of the bill. A telecommunications network is considered to have four segments: backbone, middle mile, last mile and the last 100 feet. Deregulating the last mile would help new or smaller telecom providers use the structure of the largest players.) The same source linked the bill with the ongoing conflict between the government and Clarín. On October 8, the head of the AFSCA media watchdog Martín Sabbatella announced the forced divestment of the Clarín Group on the grounds that the conglomerate was trying to “cheat” his department by presenting a bogus divestment plan. Observers see Clarín taking the issue to courts in coming days. At the same time, Clarín was left out of the country’s 4G bidding process which is expected to go ahead tomorrow. Telefónica’s Movistar, Telecom’s Personal, and firms Claro (headed by Mexican magnate Carlos Slim) and Arlink (part of the Vila-Manzano Group) were all pre-selected to participate in the tender process. “This constitutes a new chapter in the fight against Clarín media group”, the private source pointed out. “A new bill should promote competition with fair rules. The mobile phone market represents 45 billion pesos out of 70 billion pesos for the entire telecommunication market. “On the other hand, Cablevisión (Clarín’s cable-television provider) only has a market share of six percent,” the source added. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Nov 1 18:40:47 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 17:40:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] India proposes a complete re-engineering of Internetworking Message-ID: http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S14-PP-C-0098!!MSW-E.pdf -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Nov 1 18:54:31 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 17:54:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <21589.13469.249142.937652@world.std.com> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> <21583.61688.286480.255502@world.std.com> <5450C671.4080302@digsys.bg> <21586.40289.268447.626242@world.std.com> <3DDD7908-830B-4D53-9824-737F2DC07553@digsys.bg> <21588.23378.910700.805109@world.std.com> <21589.13469.249142.937652@world.std.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Barry Shein wrote: > I was just referring to the fact that the RIRs are defined as > representing a set of nation states. I don't think that is a fact in evidence at all. RIRs can "represent" their Members, certainly. In international fora such as the ITU, I think RIRs "represent" their policy communities and their Membership. I don't think they purport to represent anyone else, certainly not nation states One doesn't have to live in a region to participate in the policy making of that regions RIR. Entities can be HQed outside the geo region that makes up a RIR and still get resources from that RIR. So a US CDN can get RIPE resources or a Indian Tier 1 can get resources from the ARIN region, etc. -- 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 compsoftnet at gmail.com Sat Nov 1 20:02:32 2014 From: compsoftnet at gmail.com (Akinremi Peter Taiwo) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2014 01:02:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] APC assessment of the 2014 IGF In-Reply-To: <5450A75F.3060507@apc.org> References: <54509859.5050101@apc.org> <5450A75F.3060507@apc.org> Message-ID: Good compilation and well detailed assessment. I think it captures my mind. Cheers!!!! On Oct 29, 2014 9:37 AM, "Anriette Esterhuysen" wrote: > > Dear all > > Attached is the APC assessment of the 2014 IGF and recommendations for > 2015. > > Anriette > > > -- > ````````````````````````````````` > anriette esterhuysen > executive director > association for progressive communications > po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Nov 2 06:50:14 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2014 05:50:14 -0600 Subject: [governance] Re: India proposes a complete re-engineering of Internetworking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: All, The India text has been revised, I can't find it on wcitleaks right now, but the CCG (National Law University Delhi) has done a summary with excerpts: http://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/02/re-drafted-resolution-from-india-at-the-itu-plenipotentiary/ -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 5:40 PM, McTim wrote: > http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S14-PP-C-0098!!MSW-E.pdf > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 2 07:06:00 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 17:36:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: India proposes a complete re-engineering of Internetworking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1497065a148.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Ah, the eternal struggle between proponents of multistakeholderism and multilateralism among indian agencies persists, I see I am sorry that parminder might not appreciate this revised text though :) 'that a multi-stakeholder approach should be adopted, to the extent possible, at all levels to improve the coordination of activities of international and inter-governmental organizations and other institutions involved in telecom/ICT networks based on IP technology;' On November 2, 2014 5:21:29 PM McTim wrote: > All, > > The India text has been revised, I can't find it on wcitleaks right > now, but the CCG > (National Law University Delhi) has done a summary with excerpts: > > http://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/02/re-drafted-resolution-from-india-at-the-itu-plenipotentiary/ > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 5:40 PM, McTim wrote: > > http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S14-PP-C-0098!!MSW-E.pdf > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > > > McTim > > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Nov 2 08:13:40 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2014 07:13:40 -0600 Subject: [governance] Re: India proposes a complete re-engineering of Internetworking In-Reply-To: <1497065a148.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <1497065a148.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: found it, thanks to @sgdickinson http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S14-PP-141020-DL-0011!R8!MSW-E.pdf On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 6:06 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Ah, the eternal struggle between proponents of multistakeholderism and > multilateralism among indian agencies persists, I see > > I am sorry that parminder might not appreciate this revised text though :) > > 'that a multi-stakeholder approach should be adopted, to the extent > possible, at all levels to improve the coordination of activities of > international and inter-governmental organizations and other institutions > involved in telecom/ICT networks based on IP technology;' > > > > > On November 2, 2014 5:21:29 PM McTim wrote: > >> All, >> >> The India text has been revised, I can't find it on wcitleaks right >> now, but the CCG >> (National Law University Delhi) has done a summary with excerpts: >> >> >> http://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/02/re-drafted-resolution-from-india-at-the-itu-plenipotentiary/ >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 5:40 PM, McTim wrote: >> > http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S14-PP-C-0098!!MSW-E.pdf >> > >> > -- >> > Cheers, >> > >> > McTim >> > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> > > -- 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 wjdrake at gmail.com Sun Nov 2 08:45:50 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2014 14:45:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] [IP] China to hold high-level world Internet conference - Xinhua | English.news.cn In-Reply-To: <149661fabc0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <14965ce1120.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <0705D9A0-56EA-499A-9406-9C2754BD7349@gmail.com> <149661fabc0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <85F0966F-1E91-446D-B2B1-F1EE04DC1AC0@gmail.com> Hi It’s not China-only. I was told that travel and accommodation within China could be covered but due to budget limits airfare support is only available for selected invitees from developing countries. Best Bill > On Oct 31, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > My guess is a China only event with some invited guests especially companies doing business in China or in some cases, invited technical experts. > On October 31, 2014 5:31:51 PM Chantal Lebrument wrote: > >> For information I and others French people including Louis Pouzin are in Shanghai for 10 days (SmartCities event), and we can not use Gmail normally (only with my iPhone 5!!) nor Facebook, Twitter >> Very difficult to work with one smartphone for 3 or 4 people;=)) >> But, regarding this China event it seems to be a... China event between ICANN and US operators and chinese regulators... >> But we will ask to VIP we will meet... >> >> Chantal >> >> Envoyé de mon iPhone >> >> Le 31 oct. 2014 à 18:54, Mawaki Chango > a écrit : >> >>> Wow, just in less than a month? Is anyone aware of when this was first announced/decided? >>> When I read the headline at first, I thought maybe the new trend that one of the BRICS will be organizing a global IG meeting, say, every year or something. But schedule is too tight and I'm afraid we will soon be having an overdose. >>> >>> Mawaki >>> >>> >>> ===================================== >>> Mawaki Chango, PhD >>> Founder >>> DIGILEXIS >>> http://www.digilexis.com >>> m.chango at digilexis.com | kichango at gmail.com >>> Twitter: @digilexis & @prodigilexis >>> Mob. +225 57 55 57 53 | +225 44 48 77 64 >>> Skype: digilexis >>> ===================================== >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >>> >>> --- Forwarded message --- >>> From: "Dave Farber via ip" > >>> Date: October 31, 2014 3:58:41 PM >>> Subject: [IP] China to hold high-level world Internet conference - Xinhua | English.news.cn >>> To: "ip" > >>> >>> http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2014-10/30/c_133754691.htm >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Nov 2 22:36:37 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 09:06:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] A view form the US, about the US and the Internet Message-ID: <5456F845.9090703@itforchange.net> "The fact that no country beside the US possesses a pervasive, global spying system proves that the argument that “all countries do it” is specious. From satellites in the late 1950s to the Internet infrastructure today, this unparalleled US global surveillance complex has been continuously modernised. But since the fall of socialism in the early 1990s, it also has been repurposed. Its function is still to combat challengers, and would-be challengers, to a global political economy that is built around US interests." A view from the US /*US wants to control, and own, the world online - We’ve got our eye on you*/ http://mondediplo.com/2014/11/02dsnowden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Nov 3 02:50:03 2014 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 09:50:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <21589.6624.909407.558126@world.std.com> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> <21583.61688.286480.255502@world.std.com> <5450C671.4080302@digsys.bg> <21586.40289.268447.626242@world.std.com> <3DDD7908-830B-4D53-9824-737F2DC07553@digsys.bg> <1496881fdf0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <21589.6624.909407.558126@world.std.com> Message-ID: <545733AB.1080804@digsys.bg> On 01.11.14 19:35, Barry Shein wrote: > > On November 1, 2014 at 04:49 suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) wrote: > > Not strictly geographical either. RIPE covered a lot of North Africa > > historically > > I would call that geographic, one can still draw a continuous circle > around it spanning the Mediterranean. It wasn't haphazard certainly. > > Of course one could attribute other motives, that the "circle" mostly > covers the non-black (dominant) population of Europe and N Africa. > > I suppose the real question is what was the question? > The question was: is IP address allocation based on nation-state borders. The short answer is NO. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Nov 3 03:08:18 2014 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 10:08:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> <21583.61688.286480.255502@world.std.com> <5450C671.4080302@digsys.bg> <21586.40289.268447.626242@world.std.com> <3DDD7908-830B-4D53-9824-737F2DC07553@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <545737F2.5030407@digsys.bg> On 01.11.14 03:31, David Conrad wrote: >> I was today at a meeting with our government, and they insisted >> that "multistakeholderism", "as they were told by ICANN" means, >> that governments should have more role in managing the Internet. > > I suspect (but am just guessing) that the intended message was that > it would be useful if governments got more involved as a peer with > other stakeholders in efforts related to Internet governance, i.e., > governments are part of the multi-stakeholder model. However as you > note, people will hear what they want to hear. We all want governments involved. If for no other reason, than them wearing too much oppressive power in the society and without knowledge of the real issues and processes, could do much harm, when basing their decisions on what someone's grandmother heard on the queue at the supermarket. >> They also commented that Bulgaria is the only country in Europe >> with a liberal regime where the government does not control the >> Internet (their wording), and this should be fixed. > > It might be interesting to understand what they believe 'control > the Internet' means. This is indeed an interesting situation. My theory is this: We have been in "transition" for some 25 years now and all this time, our government people were concerned how much more they could steal (or help their friends/masters steal). This has not left them much time to really concentrate on the Internet. They did listen to their telecom friends (in old times, the telecom was a good source of unaccounted money for the government) --- and this eventually led to some absurd situations/regulations, very related to Internet development, but indirectly. They also listen to their secret services/mafia friends, in attempts to pass some ridiculous "they have such in other countries, we must be able to do it too" type laws on surveillance. It is just amazing how our society has managed to resist that part. They eventually looked into this "internet governance" stuff, including running/managing the various registries, but ultimately came to the idea "there is not enough money in this to bother". But, as they hear "internet governance" talks all around them, at all possible forums, they probably think this is something very important to be involved in. But, as everyone tells them their role is to participate, not rule... they get very confused. In this regard, I am curious whose agenda is it to involve governments in this process -- you can't force processes on parties that are not ready and this is exactly what happens. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Nov 3 03:10:44 2014 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 10:10:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <21589.7172.147989.372149@world.std.com> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> <21583.61688.286480.255502@world.std.com> <5450C671.4080302@digsys.bg> <21586.40289.268447.626242@world.std.com> <3DDD7908-830B-4D53-9824-737F2DC07553@digsys.bg> <21589.7172.147989.372149@world.std.com> Message-ID: <54573884.6050803@digsys.bg> An easy explanation of this arbitrary division is that it's based on convenience. This includes geographical distances, but also cultural and languages spoken reasons. People do group naturally for such reasons. In any case, the thing is, those RIRs and Internet resource allocation are not constituted on political borders. Daniel On 01.11.14 19:44, Barry Shein wrote: > > If one wants to pursue the "geographic region" line of reasoning then > we have to note that Mexico, although located in North America, is a > member of LACNIC. > > All these constructs are messy, though not overly so -- is the problem > ARIN v. LACNIC, or Latin America v. North America? > > But it's still accurate that the five RIRs are defined as a collection > of specific nation-states (a few exceptions, mostly territories etc) > roughly within five geographic loci. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Nov 3 03:21:26 2014 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 10:21:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <21588.23378.910700.805109@world.std.com> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> <21583.61688.286480.255502@world.std.com> <5450C671.4080302@digsys.bg> <21586.40289.268447.626242@world.std.com> <3DDD7908-830B-4D53-9824-737F2DC07553@digsys.bg> <21588.23378.910700.805109@world.std.com> Message-ID: <54573B06.5000309@digsys.bg> On 01.11.14 06:02, Barry Shein wrote: > Perhaps stating a contrapositive is even more clear: Other than > perhaps some small outlying islands or similar special cases no > nation-state is split between two RIRs. Even the vast Russian > Federation which spans two continents is entirely within only the RIPE > NCC region. My understanding of the way people in Russia think is that they prefer to be considered an entity on their own. If not, they would prefer to be part of Europe. Them being part of the RIPE is for one, and one reason alone: RIPE was the only functioning entity they could interact with. RIPE, being informal group of Europeans were much more tolerant to the Russians and always interfaced with them on practical matters. They always had various issues trying to bypass RIPE, which is what they would naturally do, as their other choice was to deal with the US based Internic and that was difficult at the time. We also need to remember that within a nation-state, there are many different, often antagonizing interests. The development and outcome of the interaction between Russia and RIPE is an interesting topic to study. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Nov 3 04:43:12 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 10:43:12 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> <21583.61688.286480.255502@world.std.com> <5450C671.4080302@digsys.bg> <21586.40289.268447.626242@world.std.com> <3DDD7908-830B-4D53-9824-737F2DC07553@digsys.bg> <545737F2.5030407@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016427F4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Bulgaria (see below): >> They also commented that Bulgaria is the only country in Europe >> with a liberal regime where the government does not control the >> Internet (their wording), and this should be fixed. > > It might be interesting to understand what they believe 'control > the Internet' means. This is indeed an interesting situation. My theory is this: We have been in "transition" for some 25 years now and all this time, our government people were concerned how much more they could steal (or help their friends/masters steal). This has not left them much time to really concentrate on the Internet. They did listen to their telecom friends (in old times, the telecom was a good source of unaccounted money for the government) --- and this eventually led to some absurd situations/regulations, very related to Internet development, but indirectly. They also listen to their secret services/mafia friends, in attempts to pass some ridiculous "they have such in other countries, we must be able to do it too" type laws on surveillance. It is just amazing how our society has managed to resist that part. They eventually looked into this "internet governance" stuff, including running/managing the various registries, but ultimately came to the idea "there is not enough money in this to bother". But, as they hear "internet governance" talks all around them, at all possible forums, they probably think this is something very important to be involved in. But, as everyone tells them their role is to participate, not rule... they get very confused. In this regard, I am curious whose agenda is it to involve governments in this process -- you can't force processes on parties that are not ready and this is exactly what happens. Wolfgang: Bulgaria host the 8th EURODIG, the European Internet Governance Forum, in June 2015. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Nov 3 05:23:51 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 11:23:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC References: Message-ID: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> > Begin forwarded message: > > Date: November 3, 2014 at 11:05:04 AM GMT+1 > Subject: Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC > From: NETmundial Secretariat > To: NETmundial Secretariat > > You are cordially invited to participate in a webinar session marking the official launch of the NETmundial Initiative. > > > The Initiative’s way forward has been shaped by the feedback collected from the various community dialogues since the NETmundial-inspired meeting hosted by the World Economic Forum in Geneva on 28 August 2014. > > > > The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br ), the World Economic Forum (WEF ), and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN ), will discuss these developments, in addition to the role of the multistakeholder NETmundial Initiative in energizing bottom-up, collaborative Internet governance solutions in a distributed ecosystem. > > > Speakers: Virgilio Augusto Fernandes Almeida (CGI.br), Richard Samans (WEF) and Fadi Chehadé (ICANN). > > · Date: Thursday, 6 November 2014 > > · Time: 15:00 - 16:00 UTC (time converter: http://tinyurl.com/kpl4c62 ) > > · Audio Dial-in Numbers > > o USA/CAN Toll Free: 877-397-0286 > > o Int'l Toll Free: 719-325-4745 > > o Conference ID: 9037957 > > · Adobe Connect Login Information > > o https://djeholdings.adobeconnect.com/r8y97sljopf/ > o Click on “Enter as Guest” > > o Enter your name > > o Click Enter Room > > > A question and answer session will take place after remarks from the speakers. > > > The webinar will be recorded and made available online for those unable to join. > > > For questions, please contact secretariat at netmundial.org . > > --- > > > > International Toll-Free Dial-in Numbers > > > Int'l toll free - Argentina: > > 0800 444 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Australia: > > 1 800 617 345 > > > Int'l toll free - Austria: > > 0800 295 793 > > > Int'l toll free - Bahamas: > > 1 800 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Belgium: > > 0 800 75 852 > > > Int'l toll free - Brazil: > > 0 800 038 0502 > > > Int'l toll free - Bulgaria: > > 00 800 115 1144 > > > Int'l toll free - Chile: > > 123 0020 6703 > > > Int'l toll free - China, Northern Region: > > 10 800 714 1511 > > > Int'l toll free - China, Southern Region: > > 10 800 140 1377 > > > Int'l toll free - Colombia: > > 01 800 518 1235 > > > Int'l toll free - Czech Republic: > > 800 700 627 > > > Int'l toll free - Denmark: > > 80 883 474 > > > Int'l toll free - Dominican Republic: > > 1 888 751 4803 > > > Int'l toll free - Ecuador: > > 1 800 020 509 > > > Int'l toll free - France: > > 0 800 914 217 > > > Int'l toll free - Germany: > > 0 800 183 0668 > > > Int'l toll free - Greece: > > 00 800 161 2203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Hong Kong: > > 800 968 835 > > > Int'l toll free - Hungary: > > 06 800 112 85 > > > Int'l toll free - India: > > 000 800 1007 606 > > > Int'l toll free - Indonesia: > > 001 803 016 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Ireland: > > 1 800 947 407 > > > Int'l toll free - Israel: > > 1 80 925 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Italy: > > 800 789 381 > > > Int'l toll free - Japan: > > 00348 0040 0942 > > > Int'l toll free - Latvia: > > 8000 3532 > > > Int'l toll free - Lithuania: > > 8 800 3 09 71 > > > Int'l toll free - Luxembourg: > > 800 2 4396 > > > Int'l toll free - Malaysia: > > 1800 81 4728 > > > Int'l toll free - Mexico: > > 001 800 514 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Monaco: > > 800 93 601 > > > Int'l toll free - Netherlands: > > 0 800 022 1719 > > > Int'l toll free - New Zealand: > > 0 800 451 591 > > > Int'l toll free - Norway: > > 800 188 28 > > > Int'l toll free - Panama: > > 00 800 226 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Philippines: > > 1 800 111 016 50 > > > Int'l toll free - Poland: > > 00 800 112 41 48 > > > Int'l toll free - Portugal: > > 800 827 563 > > > Int'l toll free - Russian Federation: > > 810 800 2920 1012 > > > Int'l toll free - Singapore, Singapore: > > 800 101 2323 > > > Int'l toll free - Slovakia: > > 0800 606 370 > > > Int'l toll free - Slovenia: > > 0 800 80441 > > > Int'l toll free - South Africa: > > 0 800 982 293 > > > Int'l toll free - South Korea, Korea, Republic Of: > > 003 0813 2347 > > > Int'l toll free - Spain: > > 900 937 669 > > > Int'l toll free - Sweden: > > 02 079 4840 > > > Int'l toll free - Switzerland: > > 0 800 890 126 > > > Int'l toll free - Taiwan: > > 00 801 127 460 > > > Int'l toll free - Thailand: > > 001 800 156 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Trinidad and Tobago: > > 1800 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - United Arab Emirates: > > 800 017 0998 > > > Int'l toll free - United Kingdom: > > 0 808 101 7162 > > > Int'l toll free - Uruguay: > > 0004 019 0352 > > > Int'l toll free - Venezuela: > > 0 800 100 8542 > > > -- > Secretariat, NETmundial Initiative *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Webinar Invitation on the Launch of the NETmundial Initiative.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 99306 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From caribe at entropia.blog.br Mon Nov 3 12:03:34 2014 From: caribe at entropia.blog.br (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Carlos_Rebello_Carib=E9?=) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 15:03:34 -0200 Subject: [governance] Zero-Rating... Message-ID: <60D287AD-CCD5-46FB-91C7-491AE59F3590@entropia.blog.br> FYI http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141103_zero_rating_and_the_creation_of_digital_castes/ -- João Carlos R. Caribé Consultor Skype joaocaribe (021) 4042 7727 (021) 9 8761 1967 -- João Carlos R. Caribé Consultor Skype joaocaribe (021) 9 8761 1967 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 3 12:50:09 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 12:50:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <545733AB.1080804@digsys.bg> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> <21583.61688.286480.255502@world.std.com> <5450C671.4080302@digsys.bg> <21586.40289.268447.626242@world.std.com> <3DDD7908-830B-4D53-9824-737F2DC07553@digsys.bg> <1496881fdf0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <21589.6624.909407.558126@world.std.com> <545733AB.1080804@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <21591.49233.63629.495648@world.std.com> No, the question was whether RIR's purviews are defined as serving a set of nation-states. The answer to that question is, with some pragmatic exceptions, yes. On November 3, 2014 at 09:50 daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) wrote: > > > On 01.11.14 19:35, Barry Shein wrote: > > > > On November 1, 2014 at 04:49 suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) wrote: > > > Not strictly geographical either. RIPE covered a lot of North Africa > > > historically > > > > I would call that geographic, one can still draw a continuous circle > > around it spanning the Mediterranean. It wasn't haphazard certainly. > > > > Of course one could attribute other motives, that the "circle" mostly > > covers the non-black (dominant) population of Europe and N Africa. > > > > I suppose the real question is what was the question? > > > > The question was: is IP address allocation based on nation-state borders. > > The short answer is NO. > > Daniel -- -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 bzs at world.std.com Mon Nov 3 13:09:20 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 13:09:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <54573B06.5000309@digsys.bg> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <25F89C69-6FA6-429A-85DD-654D23773E78@virtualized.org> <21583.61688.286480.255502@world.std.com> <5450C671.4080302@digsys.bg> <21586.40289.268447.626242@world.std.com> <3DDD7908-830B-4D53-9824-737F2DC07553@digsys.bg> <21588.23378.910700.805109@world.std.com> <54573B06.5000309@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <21591.50384.308292.913827@world.std.com> Yes but the point is that the Russian Federation didn't split between RIPE and APNIC because, for example, a large part of their sovereign territory is in the continent of Europe and another in Asia. In theory they perhaps could have argued for that and "double-dipped". It may have been to their advantage, a bigger pool. But the make-up of the RIRs was (with some pragmatic exceptions) sets of nation-states. The RIRs list these countries quite clearly, there's no reading between the lines involved: https://www.arin.net/knowledge/rirs/countries.html And head that with: This comprehensive list of countries is provided as a reference tool to identify the region in which any particular country or economy is located. I believe "or economy" is just saying what I say when I point out that there are some pragmatic exceptions (e.g., island territories.) THE original point I was addressing was that someone said allocating IP addresses along "Westphalian" lines was (choose a word, inappropriate? unprecedented?) I don't think that's a good characterization. On November 3, 2014 at 10:21 daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) wrote: > > > On 01.11.14 06:02, Barry Shein wrote: > > Perhaps stating a contrapositive is even more clear: Other than > > perhaps some small outlying islands or similar special cases no > > nation-state is split between two RIRs. Even the vast Russian > > Federation which spans two continents is entirely within only the RIPE > > NCC region. > > My understanding of the way people in Russia think is that they prefer > to be considered an entity on their own. If not, they would prefer to be > part of Europe. > > Them being part of the RIPE is for one, and one reason alone: RIPE was > the only functioning entity they could interact with. RIPE, being > informal group of Europeans were much more tolerant to the Russians and > always interfaced with them on practical matters. They always had > various issues trying to bypass RIPE, which is what they would naturally > do, as their other choice was to deal with the US based Internic and > that was difficult at the time. We also need to remember that within a > nation-state, there are many different, often antagonizing interests. > > The development and outcome of the interaction between Russia and RIPE > is an interesting topic to study. > > Daniel > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Mon Nov 3 13:24:23 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 10:24:23 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [1st-mile-nm] Doc. Film: Death by Design In-Reply-To: <225953C3-2808-49E1-B0EB-11262BF713BC@1st-mile.org> References: <225953C3-2808-49E1-B0EB-11262BF713BC@1st-mile.org> Message-ID: <312b01cff793$66c937f0$345ba7d0$@gmail.com> From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of Richard Lowenberg Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 9:50 AM To: 1st-Mile-NM Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Doc. Film: Death by Design An ongoing and growing issue in our complex, globally linked techno-ecosystem. RL MacArthur Foundation supports documentary films, including Death by Design, by Sue Williams and colleagues. Examining the global environmental and public health consequences of our addiction to our digital devices. Death by Design explores how the manufacturing and disposal of digital devices have deadly environmental and social costs. From China, where most devices are made today, to the mountains of California, the hills of New York State, and the high tech corridors of Silicon Valley - the epicenters of tech manufacturing in the 1980s and '90s - the film tells underreported stories of environmental degradation and of serious illnesses linked to an industry that relies on the theory and practice of planned obsolescence. What emerges is a look at the interconnectedness of the global manufacturing economy. http://www.macfound.org/documentaryfilm/401/ --------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute www.1st-mile.org P. O. Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504 505-603-5200 rl at 1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Nov 3 14:12:07 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 06:12:07 +1100 Subject: [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> References: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5AD33DB64739402889AFACEF8A60440B@Toshiba> So it’s back to being the NETmundial initiative again. I note the involvement of Virgilio Almeida, but are any of our colleagues , particularly those with with affiliations with cgi.br, aware of any endorsement or MOU as regards NETmundial name being used for this? Ian Peter From: William Drake Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 9:23 PM To: Best Bits ; Governance Subject: [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC Begin forwarded message: Date: November 3, 2014 at 11:05:04 AM GMT+1 Subject: Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC From: NETmundial Secretariat To: NETmundial Secretariat You are cordially invited to participate in a webinar session marking the official launch of the NETmundial Initiative. The Initiative’s way forward has been shaped by the feedback collected from the various community dialogues since the NETmundial-inspired meeting hosted by the World Economic Forum in Geneva on 28 August 2014. The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br), the World Economic Forum (WEF), and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), will discuss these developments, in addition to the role of the multistakeholder NETmundial Initiative in energizing bottom-up, collaborative Internet governance solutions in a distributed ecosystem. Speakers: Virgilio Augusto Fernandes Almeida (CGI.br), Richard Samans (WEF) and Fadi Chehadé (ICANN). · Date: Thursday, 6 November 2014 · Time: 15:00 - 16:00 UTC (time converter: http://tinyurl.com/kpl4c62) · Audio Dial-in Numbers o USA/CAN Toll Free: 877-397-0286 o Int'l Toll Free: 719-325-4745 o Conference ID: 9037957 · Adobe Connect Login Information o https://djeholdings.adobeconnect.com/r8y97sljopf/ o Click on “Enter as Guest” o Enter your name o Click Enter Room A question and answer session will take place after remarks from the speakers. The webinar will be recorded and made available online for those unable to join. For questions, please contact secretariat at netmundial.org. --- International Toll-Free Dial-in Numbers Int'l toll free - Argentina: 0800 444 8243 Int'l toll free - Australia: 1 800 617 345 Int'l toll free - Austria: 0800 295 793 Int'l toll free - Bahamas: 1 800 203 8243 Int'l toll free - Belgium: 0 800 75 852 Int'l toll free - Brazil: 0 800 038 0502 Int'l toll free - Bulgaria: 00 800 115 1144 Int'l toll free - Chile: 123 0020 6703 Int'l toll free - China, Northern Region: 10 800 714 1511 Int'l toll free - China, Southern Region: 10 800 140 1377 Int'l toll free - Colombia: 01 800 518 1235 Int'l toll free - Czech Republic: 800 700 627 Int'l toll free - Denmark: 80 883 474 Int'l toll free - Dominican Republic: 1 888 751 4803 Int'l toll free - Ecuador: 1 800 020 509 Int'l toll free - France: 0 800 914 217 Int'l toll free - Germany: 0 800 183 0668 Int'l toll free - Greece: 00 800 161 2203 8243 Int'l toll free - Hong Kong: 800 968 835 Int'l toll free - Hungary: 06 800 112 85 Int'l toll free - India: 000 800 1007 606 Int'l toll free - Indonesia: 001 803 016 8243 Int'l toll free - Ireland: 1 800 947 407 Int'l toll free - Israel: 1 80 925 8243 Int'l toll free - Italy: 800 789 381 Int'l toll free - Japan: 00348 0040 0942 Int'l toll free - Latvia: 8000 3532 Int'l toll free - Lithuania: 8 800 3 09 71 Int'l toll free - Luxembourg: 800 2 4396 Int'l toll free - Malaysia: 1800 81 4728 Int'l toll free - Mexico: 001 800 514 8243 Int'l toll free - Monaco: 800 93 601 Int'l toll free - Netherlands: 0 800 022 1719 Int'l toll free - New Zealand: 0 800 451 591 Int'l toll free - Norway: 800 188 28 Int'l toll free - Panama: 00 800 226 8243 Int'l toll free - Philippines: 1 800 111 016 50 Int'l toll free - Poland: 00 800 112 41 48 Int'l toll free - Portugal: 800 827 563 Int'l toll free - Russian Federation: 810 800 2920 1012 Int'l toll free - Singapore, Singapore: 800 101 2323 Int'l toll free - Slovakia: 0800 606 370 Int'l toll free - Slovenia: 0 800 80441 Int'l toll free - South Africa: 0 800 982 293 Int'l toll free - South Korea, Korea, Republic Of: 003 0813 2347 Int'l toll free - Spain: 900 937 669 Int'l toll free - Sweden: 02 079 4840 Int'l toll free - Switzerland: 0 800 890 126 Int'l toll free - Taiwan: 00 801 127 460 Int'l toll free - Thailand: 001 800 156 203 8243 Int'l toll free - Trinidad and Tobago: 1800 203 8243 Int'l toll free - United Arab Emirates: 800 017 0998 Int'l toll free - United Kingdom: 0 808 101 7162 Int'l toll free - Uruguay: 0004 019 0352 Int'l toll free - Venezuela: 0 800 100 8542 -- Secretariat, NETmundial Initiative -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Begin forwarded message: > > Date: November 3, 2014 at 11:05:04 AM GMT+1 > Subject: Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC > From: NETmundial Secretariat > To: NETmundial Secretariat > > You are cordially invited to participate in a webinar session marking the official launch of the NETmundial Initiative. > > > The Initiative’s way forward has been shaped by the feedback collected from the various community dialogues since the NETmundial-inspired meeting hosted by the World Economic Forum in Geneva on 28 August 2014. > > > > The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br ), the World Economic Forum (WEF ), and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN ), will discuss these developments, in addition to the role of the multistakeholder NETmundial Initiative in energizing bottom-up, collaborative Internet governance solutions in a distributed ecosystem. > > > Speakers: Virgilio Augusto Fernandes Almeida (CGI.br), Richard Samans (WEF) and Fadi Chehadé (ICANN). > > · Date: Thursday, 6 November 2014 > > · Time: 15:00 - 16:00 UTC (time converter: http://tinyurl.com/kpl4c62 ) > > · Audio Dial-in Numbers > > o USA/CAN Toll Free: 877-397-0286 > > o Int'l Toll Free: 719-325-4745 > > o Conference ID: 9037957 > > · Adobe Connect Login Information > > o https://djeholdings.adobeconnect.com/r8y97sljopf/ > o Click on “Enter as Guest” > > o Enter your name > > o Click Enter Room > > > A question and answer session will take place after remarks from the speakers. > > > The webinar will be recorded and made available online for those unable to join. > > > For questions, please contact secretariat at netmundial.org . > > --- > > > > International Toll-Free Dial-in Numbers > > > Int'l toll free - Argentina: > > 0800 444 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Australia: > > 1 800 617 345 > > > Int'l toll free - Austria: > > 0800 295 793 > > > Int'l toll free - Bahamas: > > 1 800 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Belgium: > > 0 800 75 852 > > > Int'l toll free - Brazil: > > 0 800 038 0502 > > > Int'l toll free - Bulgaria: > > 00 800 115 1144 > > > Int'l toll free - Chile: > > 123 0020 6703 > > > Int'l toll free - China, Northern Region: > > 10 800 714 1511 > > > Int'l toll free - China, Southern Region: > > 10 800 140 1377 > > > Int'l toll free - Colombia: > > 01 800 518 1235 > > > Int'l toll free - Czech Republic: > > 800 700 627 > > > Int'l toll free - Denmark: > > 80 883 474 > > > Int'l toll free - Dominican Republic: > > 1 888 751 4803 > > > Int'l toll free - Ecuador: > > 1 800 020 509 > > > Int'l toll free - France: > > 0 800 914 217 > > > Int'l toll free - Germany: > > 0 800 183 0668 > > > Int'l toll free - Greece: > > 00 800 161 2203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Hong Kong: > > 800 968 835 > > > Int'l toll free - Hungary: > > 06 800 112 85 > > > Int'l toll free - India: > > 000 800 1007 606 > > > Int'l toll free - Indonesia: > > 001 803 016 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Ireland: > > 1 800 947 407 > > > Int'l toll free - Israel: > > 1 80 925 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Italy: > > 800 789 381 > > > Int'l toll free - Japan: > > 00348 0040 0942 > > > Int'l toll free - Latvia: > > 8000 3532 > > > Int'l toll free - Lithuania: > > 8 800 3 09 71 > > > Int'l toll free - Luxembourg: > > 800 2 4396 > > > Int'l toll free - Malaysia: > > 1800 81 4728 > > > Int'l toll free - Mexico: > > 001 800 514 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Monaco: > > 800 93 601 > > > Int'l toll free - Netherlands: > > 0 800 022 1719 > > > Int'l toll free - New Zealand: > > 0 800 451 591 > > > Int'l toll free - Norway: > > 800 188 28 > > > Int'l toll free - Panama: > > 00 800 226 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Philippines: > > 1 800 111 016 50 > > > Int'l toll free - Poland: > > 00 800 112 41 48 > > > Int'l toll free - Portugal: > > 800 827 563 > > > Int'l toll free - Russian Federation: > > 810 800 2920 1012 > > > Int'l toll free - Singapore, Singapore: > > 800 101 2323 > > > Int'l toll free - Slovakia: > > 0800 606 370 > > > Int'l toll free - Slovenia: > > 0 800 80441 > > > Int'l toll free - South Africa: > > 0 800 982 293 > > > Int'l toll free - South Korea, Korea, Republic Of: > > 003 0813 2347 > > > Int'l toll free - Spain: > > 900 937 669 > > > Int'l toll free - Sweden: > > 02 079 4840 > > > Int'l toll free - Switzerland: > > 0 800 890 126 > > > Int'l toll free - Taiwan: > > 00 801 127 460 > > > Int'l toll free - Thailand: > > 001 800 156 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Trinidad and Tobago: > > 1800 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - United Arab Emirates: > > 800 017 0998 > > > Int'l toll free - United Kingdom: > > 0 808 101 7162 > > > Int'l toll free - Uruguay: > > 0004 019 0352 > > > Int'l toll free - Venezuela: > > 0 800 100 8542 > > > -- > Secretariat, NETmundial Initiative *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Nov 3 19:04:48 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 16:04:48 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <328601cff7c2$f766cfa0$e6346ee0$@gmail.com> The issue is not “participation” but “accountability”. To whom are these “stakeholders” accountable apart from to themselves or to whomever has paid for their participation? Are their formal procedures for accountability, are their relationship to their funders transparent, if one group of stakeholders or simply one group of participant concerned about the nature of the participation/representation of another group what measures are available to challenge that participation and under what terms? Who is accountable to ensure “the public interest”? How is one able to ensure the “accountability” of the entire process and to would the entire process be accountable? Of course, there are flaws and failures but it is quite simple to answer each of the above for “democratic” decision making processes… but I’m still waiting for someone to enlighten me as to how MS process can be held accountable. M From: Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 12:36 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: Jeremy Malcolm; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations It is not fair to say that the Multistakeholder model restricts participation. In fact the opposite is true because this new model has a working framework in place for bringing in participants other than elected representatives and appointed functionaries ( would not be very wrong to class these them both under "Government") to the table. And it is too early in the evolutionary phase of multistakeholder model to draw a conclusion that the participating stakeholders ​​​are not representative enough. The contrary of what you said is true. By its definition, by its intentions, and by the framework already in place, Multistakeholderism DOES extend AND broaden the opportunity for EFFECTIVE participation. Sivasubramanian M On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this by putting the condition of “stakeholdership” ​ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 3 19:15:54 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 05:45:54 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <328601cff7c2$f766cfa0$e6346ee0$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> <328601cff7c2$f766cfa0$e6346ee0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <14978285ec0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> To whom is anybody at all in this caucus accountable for say wrecking attempts to achieve consensus? And after you fasten accountability what would you then do to whoever is held accountable for whatever? That the caucus itself works at all is because of the same forces that make a multistakeholder approach work On November 4, 2014 5:35:37 AM "michael gurstein" wrote: > The issue is not “participation” but “accountability”. > > > > To whom are these “stakeholders” accountable apart from to themselves or to > whomever has paid for their participation? Are their formal procedures for > accountability, are their relationship to their funders transparent, if one > group of stakeholders or simply one group of participant concerned about > the nature of the participation/representation of another group what > measures are available to challenge that participation and under what terms? > > > > Who is accountable to ensure “the public interest”? > > > > How is one able to ensure the “accountability” of the entire process and to > would the entire process be accountable? > > > > Of course, there are flaws and failures but it is quite simple to answer > each of the above for “democratic” decision making processes… but I’m still > waiting for someone to enlighten me as to how MS process can be held > accountable. > > > > M > > > > From: Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 12:36 PM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: Jeremy Malcolm; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bits > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org > Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 > hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > > > It is not fair to say that the Multistakeholder model restricts > participation. In fact the opposite is true because this new model has a > working framework in place for bringing in participants other than elected > representatives and appointed functionaries ( would not be very wrong to > class these them both under "Government") to the table. And it is too early > in the evolutionary phase of multistakeholder model to draw a conclusion > that the participating stakeholders ​​​are not representative enough. > > > > The contrary of what you said is true. By its definition, by its > intentions, and by the framework already in place, Multistakeholderism DOES > extend AND broaden the opportunity for EFFECTIVE participation. > > > > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory > Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or > broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this > by putting the condition of “stakeholdership” > > > > ​ > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chinmayiarun at gmail.com Mon Nov 3 23:51:16 2014 From: chinmayiarun at gmail.com (Chinmayi Arun) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 10:21:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] On India at ITU PP 2014. Message-ID: Dear All, The Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University Delhi is working on a project that looks at India's engagement with global internet governance fora. As a part of this, my colleague Arun Mohan Sukumar has been following the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 2014. Anyone looking for information on India's inputs at the PP is welcome to follow Arun's posts on our blog: - Indian statement on ITU and Internet at the Working Group Plenary - Re-drafted resolution from India at the ITU Plenipotentiary - On the international politics of ITU negotiations For background, my colleague Ujwala has written on India and the Internet at PP-!4 . We welcome your feedback and inputs. Best wishes, Chinmayi Chinmayi Arun | Research Director Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 971-770-2630 | Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . www.nludelhi.ac.in | Twitter: @chinmayiarun -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 4 03:38:27 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 09:38:27 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC References: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> <5AD33DB64739402889AFACEF8A60440B@Toshiba> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642802@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> My understanding is that the NMI is now a "continuation" of Sao Paulo´s NetMundial (to implement the Roadmap as the main mandate) with cgi.br in the leadership position (easier after Rousseff won the election and Virgilio remains the key leader). ICANN will continue - on a lower level - to be a partner and the WEF will "collaborate" with the NMI (having its own projects independent from NMI). But lets wait for the Webinar. Virgilio will explain the outcome from the various consultations in and aftrer LA. Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Ian Peter Gesendet: Mo 03.11.2014 20:12 An: William Drake; Best Bits; Governance Betreff: Re: [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC So it's back to being the NETmundial initiative again. I note the involvement of Virgilio Almeida, but are any of our colleagues , particularly those with with affiliations with cgi.br, aware of any endorsement or MOU as regards NETmundial name being used for this? Ian Peter From: William Drake Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 9:23 PM To: Best Bits ; Governance Subject: [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC Begin forwarded message: Date: November 3, 2014 at 11:05:04 AM GMT+1 Subject: Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC From: NETmundial Secretariat To: NETmundial Secretariat You are cordially invited to participate in a webinar session marking the official launch of the NETmundial Initiative. The Initiative's way forward has been shaped by the feedback collected from the various community dialogues since the NETmundial-inspired meeting hosted by the World Economic Forum in Geneva on 28 August 2014. The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br), the World Economic Forum (WEF), and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), will discuss these developments, in addition to the role of the multistakeholder NETmundial Initiative in energizing bottom-up, collaborative Internet governance solutions in a distributed ecosystem. Speakers: Virgilio Augusto Fernandes Almeida (CGI.br), Richard Samans (WEF) and Fadi Chehadé (ICANN). · Date: Thursday, 6 November 2014 · Time: 15:00 - 16:00 UTC (time converter: http://tinyurl.com/kpl4c62) · Audio Dial-in Numbers o USA/CAN Toll Free: 877-397-0286 o Int'l Toll Free: 719-325-4745 o Conference ID: 9037957 · Adobe Connect Login Information o https://djeholdings.adobeconnect.com/r8y97sljopf/ o Click on "Enter as Guest" o Enter your name o Click Enter Room A question and answer session will take place after remarks from the speakers. The webinar will be recorded and made available online for those unable to join. For questions, please contact secretariat at netmundial.org. --- International Toll-Free Dial-in Numbers Int'l toll free - Argentina: 0800 444 8243 Int'l toll free - Australia: 1 800 617 345 Int'l toll free - Austria: 0800 295 793 Int'l toll free - Bahamas: 1 800 203 8243 Int'l toll free - Belgium: 0 800 75 852 Int'l toll free - Brazil: 0 800 038 0502 Int'l toll free - Bulgaria: 00 800 115 1144 Int'l toll free - Chile: 123 0020 6703 Int'l toll free - China, Northern Region: 10 800 714 1511 Int'l toll free - China, Southern Region: 10 800 140 1377 Int'l toll free - Colombia: 01 800 518 1235 Int'l toll free - Czech Republic: 800 700 627 Int'l toll free - Denmark: 80 883 474 Int'l toll free - Dominican Republic: 1 888 751 4803 Int'l toll free - Ecuador: 1 800 020 509 Int'l toll free - France: 0 800 914 217 Int'l toll free - Germany: 0 800 183 0668 Int'l toll free - Greece: 00 800 161 2203 8243 Int'l toll free - Hong Kong: 800 968 835 Int'l toll free - Hungary: 06 800 112 85 Int'l toll free - India: 000 800 1007 606 Int'l toll free - Indonesia: 001 803 016 8243 Int'l toll free - Ireland: 1 800 947 407 Int'l toll free - Israel: 1 80 925 8243 Int'l toll free - Italy: 800 789 381 Int'l toll free - Japan: 00348 0040 0942 Int'l toll free - Latvia: 8000 3532 Int'l toll free - Lithuania: 8 800 3 09 71 Int'l toll free - Luxembourg: 800 2 4396 Int'l toll free - Malaysia: 1800 81 4728 Int'l toll free - Mexico: 001 800 514 8243 Int'l toll free - Monaco: 800 93 601 Int'l toll free - Netherlands: 0 800 022 1719 Int'l toll free - New Zealand: 0 800 451 591 Int'l toll free - Norway: 800 188 28 Int'l toll free - Panama: 00 800 226 8243 Int'l toll free - Philippines: 1 800 111 016 50 Int'l toll free - Poland: 00 800 112 41 48 Int'l toll free - Portugal: 800 827 563 Int'l toll free - Russian Federation: 810 800 2920 1012 Int'l toll free - Singapore, Singapore: 800 101 2323 Int'l toll free - Slovakia: 0800 606 370 Int'l toll free - Slovenia: 0 800 80441 Int'l toll free - South Africa: 0 800 982 293 Int'l toll free - South Korea, Korea, Republic Of: 003 0813 2347 Int'l toll free - Spain: 900 937 669 Int'l toll free - Sweden: 02 079 4840 Int'l toll free - Switzerland: 0 800 890 126 Int'l toll free - Taiwan: 00 801 127 460 Int'l toll free - Thailand: 001 800 156 203 8243 Int'l toll free - Trinidad and Tobago: 1800 203 8243 Int'l toll free - United Arab Emirates: 800 017 0998 Int'l toll free - United Kingdom: 0 808 101 7162 Int'l toll free - Uruguay: 0004 019 0352 Int'l toll free - Venezuela: 0 800 100 8542 -- Secretariat, NETmundial Initiative -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Begin forwarded message: > > Date: November 3, 2014 at 11:05:04 AM GMT+1 > Subject: Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC > From: NETmundial Secretariat > To: NETmundial Secretariat > > You are cordially invited to participate in a webinar session marking the official launch of the NETmundial Initiative. > > > The Initiative's way forward has been shaped by the feedback collected from the various community dialogues since the NETmundial-inspired meeting hosted by the World Economic Forum in Geneva on 28 August 2014. > > > > The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br ), the World Economic Forum (WEF ), and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN ), will discuss these developments, in addition to the role of the multistakeholder NETmundial Initiative in energizing bottom-up, collaborative Internet governance solutions in a distributed ecosystem. > > > Speakers: Virgilio Augusto Fernandes Almeida (CGI.br), Richard Samans (WEF) and Fadi Chehadé (ICANN). > > · Date: Thursday, 6 November 2014 > > · Time: 15:00 - 16:00 UTC (time converter: http://tinyurl.com/kpl4c62 ) > > · Audio Dial-in Numbers > > o USA/CAN Toll Free: 877-397-0286 > > o Int'l Toll Free: 719-325-4745 > > o Conference ID: 9037957 > > · Adobe Connect Login Information > > o https://djeholdings.adobeconnect.com/r8y97sljopf/ > o Click on "Enter as Guest" > > o Enter your name > > o Click Enter Room > > > A question and answer session will take place after remarks from the speakers. > > > The webinar will be recorded and made available online for those unable to join. > > > For questions, please contact secretariat at netmundial.org . > > --- > > > > International Toll-Free Dial-in Numbers > > > Int'l toll free - Argentina: > > 0800 444 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Australia: > > 1 800 617 345 > > > Int'l toll free - Austria: > > 0800 295 793 > > > Int'l toll free - Bahamas: > > 1 800 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Belgium: > > 0 800 75 852 > > > Int'l toll free - Brazil: > > 0 800 038 0502 > > > Int'l toll free - Bulgaria: > > 00 800 115 1144 > > > Int'l toll free - Chile: > > 123 0020 6703 > > > Int'l toll free - China, Northern Region: > > 10 800 714 1511 > > > Int'l toll free - China, Southern Region: > > 10 800 140 1377 > > > Int'l toll free - Colombia: > > 01 800 518 1235 > > > Int'l toll free - Czech Republic: > > 800 700 627 > > > Int'l toll free - Denmark: > > 80 883 474 > > > Int'l toll free - Dominican Republic: > > 1 888 751 4803 > > > Int'l toll free - Ecuador: > > 1 800 020 509 > > > Int'l toll free - France: > > 0 800 914 217 > > > Int'l toll free - Germany: > > 0 800 183 0668 > > > Int'l toll free - Greece: > > 00 800 161 2203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Hong Kong: > > 800 968 835 > > > Int'l toll free - Hungary: > > 06 800 112 85 > > > Int'l toll free - India: > > 000 800 1007 606 > > > Int'l toll free - Indonesia: > > 001 803 016 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Ireland: > > 1 800 947 407 > > > Int'l toll free - Israel: > > 1 80 925 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Italy: > > 800 789 381 > > > Int'l toll free - Japan: > > 00348 0040 0942 > > > Int'l toll free - Latvia: > > 8000 3532 > > > Int'l toll free - Lithuania: > > 8 800 3 09 71 > > > Int'l toll free - Luxembourg: > > 800 2 4396 > > > Int'l toll free - Malaysia: > > 1800 81 4728 > > > Int'l toll free - Mexico: > > 001 800 514 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Monaco: > > 800 93 601 > > > Int'l toll free - Netherlands: > > 0 800 022 1719 > > > Int'l toll free - New Zealand: > > 0 800 451 591 > > > Int'l toll free - Norway: > > 800 188 28 > > > Int'l toll free - Panama: > > 00 800 226 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Philippines: > > 1 800 111 016 50 > > > Int'l toll free - Poland: > > 00 800 112 41 48 > > > Int'l toll free - Portugal: > > 800 827 563 > > > Int'l toll free - Russian Federation: > > 810 800 2920 1012 > > > Int'l toll free - Singapore, Singapore: > > 800 101 2323 > > > Int'l toll free - Slovakia: > > 0800 606 370 > > > Int'l toll free - Slovenia: > > 0 800 80441 > > > Int'l toll free - South Africa: > > 0 800 982 293 > > > Int'l toll free - South Korea, Korea, Republic Of: > > 003 0813 2347 > > > Int'l toll free - Spain: > > 900 937 669 > > > Int'l toll free - Sweden: > > 02 079 4840 > > > Int'l toll free - Switzerland: > > 0 800 890 126 > > > Int'l toll free - Taiwan: > > 00 801 127 460 > > > Int'l toll free - Thailand: > > 001 800 156 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Trinidad and Tobago: > > 1800 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - United Arab Emirates: > > 800 017 0998 > > > Int'l toll free - United Kingdom: > > 0 808 101 7162 > > > Int'l toll free - Uruguay: > > 0004 019 0352 > > > Int'l toll free - Venezuela: > > 0 800 100 8542 > > > -- > Secretariat, NETmundial Initiative *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Nov 4 05:32:33 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 11:32:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642802@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> <5AD33DB64739402889AFACEF8A60440B@Toshiba> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642802@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <74439AF0-0530-4D07-9C15-A164880E4B96@gmail.com> Hi > On Nov 4, 2014, at 9:38 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > My understanding is that the NMI is now a "continuation" of Sao Paulo´s NetMundial (to implement the Roadmap as the main mandate) Just to make sure we’re clear: per the August FAQ, NMI is NOT a continuation of Sao Paulo in the sense of global norm-setting. It does not take over any policymaking activity previously done elsewhere. It is a platform upon which people can build projects. The four initial projects were announced in August and are underway, driven by academics (2), CGI.br (1) and ICANN (1). The idea is that over time other groupings including CS could propose stuff on the platform, maybe find partners and other connections, and make stuff happen. As noted previously, WEF could use CS help in figuring out how to build and operate a platform that is open to all to use in this manner. Otherwise I assume CGI.br will be the main configurative force. There have been recalibrations based on feedback, in particular from CS. The former Steering Committee will now be a Coordinating Committee and its membership will likely be selected on a bottom-up basis by different stakeholder groups, as CS participants argued for in August. Given our experience with 1NET, it’s a fair guess this could mean it will take some time to put that group in place. > with cgi.br in the leadership position (easier after Rousseff won the election and Virgilio remains the key leader). Yes > ICANN will continue - on a lower level - to be a partner and the WEF will "collaborate" with the NMI (having its own projects independent from NMI). The three orgs are each devoting a small piece of staff support. One of the four projects’ is ICANN’s, and it’s the least clear at this point. > But lets wait for the Webinar. Virgilio will explain the outcome from the various consultations in and aftrer LA. And to Ian’s point, there is supposed to be a lot of press on the webinar so someone may raise the point, but if they don't you could of course ask Virgilio to explain the intra-CGI.br process here. They wanted to keep the name. Best Bill > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Ian Peter > Gesendet: Mo 03.11.2014 20:12 > An: William Drake; Best Bits; Governance > Betreff: Re: [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC > > So it's back to being the NETmundial initiative again. I note the involvement of Virgilio Almeida, but are any of our colleagues , particularly those with with affiliations with cgi.br, aware of any endorsement or MOU as regards NETmundial name being used for this? > > Ian Peter > > From: William Drake > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 9:23 PM > To: Best Bits ; Governance > Subject: [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC > > > Begin forwarded message: > > Date: November 3, 2014 at 11:05:04 AM GMT+1 > > Subject: Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC > > From: NETmundial Secretariat > > To: NETmundial Secretariat > > > You are cordially invited to participate in a webinar session marking the official launch of the NETmundial Initiative. > > > > The Initiative's way forward has been shaped by the feedback collected from the various community dialogues since the NETmundial-inspired meeting hosted by the World Economic Forum in Geneva on 28 August 2014. > > > > > The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br), the World Economic Forum (WEF), and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), will discuss these developments, in addition to the role of the multistakeholder NETmundial Initiative in energizing bottom-up, collaborative Internet governance solutions in a distributed ecosystem. > > > > Speakers: Virgilio Augusto Fernandes Almeida (CGI.br), Richard Samans (WEF) and Fadi Chehadé (ICANN). > > · Date: Thursday, 6 November 2014 > > · Time: 15:00 - 16:00 UTC (time converter: http://tinyurl.com/kpl4c62) > > · Audio Dial-in Numbers > > o USA/CAN Toll Free: 877-397-0286 > > o Int'l Toll Free: 719-325-4745 > > o Conference ID: 9037957 > > · Adobe Connect Login Information > > o https://djeholdings.adobeconnect.com/r8y97sljopf/ > > o Click on "Enter as Guest" > > o Enter your name > > o Click Enter Room > > > > A question and answer session will take place after remarks from the speakers. > > > > The webinar will be recorded and made available online for those unable to join. > > > > For questions, please contact secretariat at netmundial.org. > > --- > > > > International Toll-Free Dial-in Numbers > > > Int'l toll free - Argentina: > 0800 444 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Australia: > 1 800 617 345 > > > Int'l toll free - Austria: > 0800 295 793 > > > Int'l toll free - Bahamas: > 1 800 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Belgium: > 0 800 75 852 > > > Int'l toll free - Brazil: > 0 800 038 0502 > > > Int'l toll free - Bulgaria: > 00 800 115 1144 > > > Int'l toll free - Chile: > 123 0020 6703 > > > Int'l toll free - China, Northern Region: > 10 800 714 1511 > > > Int'l toll free - China, Southern Region: > 10 800 140 1377 > > > Int'l toll free - Colombia: > 01 800 518 1235 > > > Int'l toll free - Czech Republic: > 800 700 627 > > > Int'l toll free - Denmark: > 80 883 474 > > > Int'l toll free - Dominican Republic: > 1 888 751 4803 > > > Int'l toll free - Ecuador: > 1 800 020 509 > > > Int'l toll free - France: > 0 800 914 217 > > > Int'l toll free - Germany: > 0 800 183 0668 > > > Int'l toll free - Greece: > 00 800 161 2203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Hong Kong: > 800 968 835 > > > Int'l toll free - Hungary: > 06 800 112 85 > > > Int'l toll free - India: > 000 800 1007 606 > > > Int'l toll free - Indonesia: > 001 803 016 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Ireland: > 1 800 947 407 > > > Int'l toll free - Israel: > 1 80 925 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Italy: > 800 789 381 > > > Int'l toll free - Japan: > 00348 0040 0942 > > > Int'l toll free - Latvia: > 8000 3532 > > > Int'l toll free - Lithuania: > 8 800 3 09 71 > > > Int'l toll free - Luxembourg: > 800 2 4396 > > > Int'l toll free - Malaysia: > 1800 81 4728 > > > Int'l toll free - Mexico: > 001 800 514 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Monaco: > 800 93 601 > > > Int'l toll free - Netherlands: > 0 800 022 1719 > > > Int'l toll free - New Zealand: > 0 800 451 591 > > > Int'l toll free - Norway: > 800 188 28 > > > Int'l toll free - Panama: > 00 800 226 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Philippines: > 1 800 111 016 50 > > > Int'l toll free - Poland: > 00 800 112 41 48 > > > Int'l toll free - Portugal: > 800 827 563 > > > Int'l toll free - Russian Federation: > 810 800 2920 1012 > > > Int'l toll free - Singapore, Singapore: > 800 101 2323 > > > Int'l toll free - Slovakia: > 0800 606 370 > > > Int'l toll free - Slovenia: > 0 800 80441 > > > Int'l toll free - South Africa: > 0 800 982 293 > > > Int'l toll free - South Korea, Korea, Republic Of: > 003 0813 2347 > > > Int'l toll free - Spain: > 900 937 669 > > > Int'l toll free - Sweden: > 02 079 4840 > > > Int'l toll free - Switzerland: > 0 800 890 126 > > > Int'l toll free - Taiwan: > 00 801 127 460 > > > Int'l toll free - Thailand: > 001 800 156 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Trinidad and Tobago: > 1800 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - United Arab Emirates: > 800 017 0998 > > > Int'l toll free - United Kingdom: > 0 808 101 7162 > > > Int'l toll free - Uruguay: > 0004 019 0352 > > > Int'l toll free - Venezuela: > 0 800 100 8542 > > > > -- > Secretariat, NETmundial Initiative > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > *********************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************** > > > > > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joly at punkcast.com Tue Nov 4 07:41:58 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 07:41:58 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <74439AF0-0530-4D07-9C15-A164880E4B96@gmail.com> References: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> <5AD33DB64739402889AFACEF8A60440B@Toshiba> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642802@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <74439AF0-0530-4D07-9C15-A164880E4B96@gmail.com> Message-ID: I did, a little after the event, rip the WEF NMI webcast over to youtube for easy reference W.E.F. NETmundial Initiative - Initial Scoping Meeting W.E.F. NETmundial Initiative - Press Conference W.E.F. NETmundial Initiative - Debrief with Founding Partners -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Tue Nov 4 08:47:59 2014 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:47:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] Two IETF Internet-Drafts about human rights and censorship Message-ID: <20141104134758.GA1006@nic.fr> Next week is the 91th IETF meeting and, at the security meeting, these two new Internet-Drafts will be discussed: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal Work has been done on privacy issues that should be considered when creating an Internet protocol [see the excellent RFC 6973, or working groups like DPRIVE, for DNS privacy. S.B.]. This draft suggests that similar considerations may apply for other human rights such as freedom of expression or freedom of association. A proposal is made for initiating IRTF [Internet Research Task Force] work researching the possible connections between human rights and Internet standards and protocols. The goal would be to create an informational RFC concerning human rights protocol considerations. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hall-censorship-tech This document describes the technical mechanisms used by censorship regimes around the world to block or degrade internet traffic. It aims to make designers, implementers, and users of Internet protocols aware of the properties being exploited and mechanisms used to censor end-user access to information. This document makes no suggestions on individual protocol considerations, and is purely informational, intended to be a reference. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 4 11:21:25 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 17:21:25 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Two IETF Internet-Drafts about human rights and censorship References: <20141104134758.GA1006@nic.fr> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164280E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thx. Stephane, this is useful and helpful. BTW, is there any discussion with rgard to the drafts on the number of root servers for the authoritative root? This was a (non-paper?) by Paul Vixie and two Chinese partners. What I have seen is that this was more or less watered down or rejected. Any news here? Thanks Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Stephane Bortzmeyer Gesendet: Di 04.11.2014 14:47 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] Two IETF Internet-Drafts about human rights and censorship Next week is the 91th IETF meeting and, at the security meeting, these two new Internet-Drafts will be discussed: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal Work has been done on privacy issues that should be considered when creating an Internet protocol [see the excellent RFC 6973, or working groups like DPRIVE, for DNS privacy. S.B.]. This draft suggests that similar considerations may apply for other human rights such as freedom of expression or freedom of association. A proposal is made for initiating IRTF [Internet Research Task Force] work researching the possible connections between human rights and Internet standards and protocols. The goal would be to create an informational RFC concerning human rights protocol considerations. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hall-censorship-tech This document describes the technical mechanisms used by censorship regimes around the world to block or degrade internet traffic. It aims to make designers, implementers, and users of Internet protocols aware of the properties being exploited and mechanisms used to censor end-user access to information. This document makes no suggestions on individual protocol considerations, and is purely informational, intended to be a reference. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 4 12:43:00 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 18:43:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] India and Multistakehoolderism References: <20141104134758.GA1006@nic.fr> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164280E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642811@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/features/smartbuy/tech-news/india-may-dilute-stand-on-net-control/article6524088.ece -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Nov 4 16:19:35 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 15:19:35 -0600 Subject: [governance] Two IETF Internet-Drafts about human rights and censorship In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164280E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20141104134758.GA1006@nic.fr> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164280E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Wolfgang, Sorry I didn't get to say hello to you in L.A.! This is what was posted on DNS-OPS list last week: "Registration will open shortly for the Workshop on DNS Future Root Service Architecture. > Location: Hong Kong, HK > Date: December 8-9, 2014 > Hosted by: ISOC-HK > Sponsors: ZDNS/BII and CNNIC > Co-chairs: Warren Kumari and Paul Vixie This two day workshop will focus on the DNS root service architecture issues raised by two current Internet Drafts: 1. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-root-loopback-00 Decreasing Access Time to Root Servers by Running One on Loopback W. Kumari, Ed.; P. Hoffman 2. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-dnsop-scalingroot-00 How to scale the DNS root system? Xiaodong Lee; Paul Vixie; Zhiwei Yan These two drafts take very different approaches to the problem of increasing root zone availability to recursive name servers. In this workshop we will explore the differences and similarities, with an eye towards revising both drafts and clarifying their roles in the DNS root service architecture. Invitations including travel support will be extended to root name server operators (bcc'd here), and to the I-D authors. The workshop will be open to any interested party, and presentations will be streamed live and stored via Youtube. There will be no cost for attending the workshop. Pre-registration will be required. Information on how to register and on the proposed agenda will be sent shortly to this same distribution. For travel planning purposes, the meeting will run all day on December 8, with a social event that evening, and for half a day on December 9, finishing immediately after lunchtime." On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:21 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Thx. Stephane, this is useful and helpful. > > BTW, is there any discussion with rgard to the drafts on the number of root servers for the authoritative root? This was a (non-paper?) by Paul Vixie and two Chinese partners. What I have seen is that this was more or less watered down or rejected. Any news here? > > Thanks > > Wolfgang > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Stephane Bortzmeyer > Gesendet: Di 04.11.2014 14:47 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: [governance] Two IETF Internet-Drafts about human rights and censorship > > Next week is the 91th IETF meeting and, at the security meeting, these > two new Internet-Drafts will be discussed: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal > > Work has been done on privacy issues that should be considered when > creating an Internet protocol [see the excellent RFC 6973, or > working groups like DPRIVE, for DNS privacy. S.B.]. This draft suggests that similar > considerations may apply for other human rights such as freedom of > expression or freedom of association. A proposal is made for > initiating IRTF [Internet Research Task Force] work researching the > possible connections between > human rights and Internet standards and protocols. The goal would be > to create an informational RFC concerning human rights protocol > considerations. > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hall-censorship-tech > > This document describes the technical mechanisms used by censorship > regimes around the world to block or degrade internet traffic. It > aims to make designers, implementers, and users of Internet protocols > aware of the properties being exploited and mechanisms used to censor > end-user access to information. This document makes no suggestions > on individual protocol considerations, and is purely informational, > intended to be a reference. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 4 20:28:05 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 06:58:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] India and Multistakehoolderism In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642811@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20141104134758.GA1006@nic.fr> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164280E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642811@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <5F8D1B73-D657-4D07-AC03-F65C131C4D5E@hserus.net> Deity has generally been in favor of multistakeholderism. Other branches of the government (such as the home ministry - the indian equivalent of the state dept, and the foreign ministry), appear to have a broad predeliction to issuing diktats in favor of multilateralism, hence the apparent dichotomy between indian submissions from time to time. --srs (iPad) > On 04-Nov-2014, at 23:13, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > FYI > > http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/features/smartbuy/tech-news/india-may-dilute-stand-on-net-control/article6524088.ece > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Nov 4 19:08:52 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 11:08:52 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <74439AF0-0530-4D07-9C15-A164880E4B96@gmail.com> References: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> <5AD33DB64739402889AFACEF8A60440B@Toshiba> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642802@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <74439AF0-0530-4D07-9C15-A164880E4B96@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks Bill and Wolfgang for the clarifications. I am not sure that I will be able to handle a webinar at 2am AEDT, but perhaps those listening in could get clarity on this, ie Virgilio could be asked to comment on ongoing use of Netmundial name and any involvement with cgi.br as regards this. It would also be good to raise again in this context the issue of civil society (and other stakeholders for that matter) determining their own representation on the Co-ordinating Committee, and getting some indication of possible timeframes and procedures for this. One thing that has advanced since the last time involvement with WEF was raised as a possibility is a broadly agreed on procedure as regards civil society participation if CSCG is to be involved, ie “CSCG will not be involved in any appointments of CS representatives if more than 35% of its coalition members determine not to be involved in the process, or where the number with a clear determination to be involved does not exceed those expressing a wish not to be involved. (Others may have a neutral or undecided stance). Where coalition members choose not to be involved and a decision to proceed is made, their decision to do so will be announced (if they so wish) as part of any announcement of chosen representatives. The decision to be involved or not is the primary responsibility of each constituency.” The coalition members for this purpose would be IGC, Best Bits, Just Net, Diplo, NCSG, and APC. I suspect, as regards any timeframes, it would be quite quick to select representatives once coalitions had determined whether to be involved or not, but the decision as to whether to be involved by each group could take some time; particularly if there is not clarity as regards structures, processes etc. So a lot of clarity would be very useful! I will try to make the webinar, but I do suggest others should seek as much clarity as possible on these structural and procedural issues. Ian Peter From: William Drake Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 9:32 PM To: Wolfgang Kleinwächter Cc: Governance ; Ian Peter ; Best Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC Hi On Nov 4, 2014, at 9:38 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: My understanding is that the NMI is now a "continuation" of Sao Paulo´s NetMundial (to implement the Roadmap as the main mandate) Just to make sure we’re clear: per the August FAQ, NMI is NOT a continuation of Sao Paulo in the sense of global norm-setting. It does not take over any policymaking activity previously done elsewhere. It is a platform upon which people can build projects. The four initial projects were announced in August and are underway, driven by academics (2), CGI.br (1) and ICANN (1). The idea is that over time other groupings including CS could propose stuff on the platform, maybe find partners and other connections, and make stuff happen. As noted previously, WEF could use CS help in figuring out how to build and operate a platform that is open to all to use in this manner. Otherwise I assume CGI.br will be the main configurative force. There have been recalibrations based on feedback, in particular from CS. The former Steering Committee will now be a Coordinating Committee and its membership will likely be selected on a bottom-up basis by different stakeholder groups, as CS participants argued for in August. Given our experience with 1NET, it’s a fair guess this could mean it will take some time to put that group in place. with cgi.br in the leadership position (easier after Rousseff won the election and Virgilio remains the key leader). Yes ICANN will continue - on a lower level - to be a partner and the WEF will "collaborate" with the NMI (having its own projects independent from NMI). The three orgs are each devoting a small piece of staff support. One of the four projects’ is ICANN’s, and it’s the least clear at this point. But lets wait for the Webinar. Virgilio will explain the outcome from the various consultations in and aftrer LA. And to Ian’s point, there is supposed to be a lot of press on the webinar so someone may raise the point, but if they don't you could of course ask Virgilio to explain the intra-CGI.br process here. They wanted to keep the name. Best Bill -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Ian Peter Gesendet: Mo 03.11.2014 20:12 An: William Drake; Best Bits; Governance Betreff: Re: [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC So it's back to being the NETmundial initiative again. I note the involvement of Virgilio Almeida, but are any of our colleagues , particularly those with with affiliations with cgi.br, aware of any endorsement or MOU as regards NETmundial name being used for this? Ian Peter From: William Drake Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 9:23 PM To: Best Bits ; Governance Subject: [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC Begin forwarded message: Date: November 3, 2014 at 11:05:04 AM GMT+1 Subject: Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC From: NETmundial Secretariat To: NETmundial Secretariat You are cordially invited to participate in a webinar session marking the official launch of the NETmundial Initiative. The Initiative's way forward has been shaped by the feedback collected from the various community dialogues since the NETmundial-inspired meeting hosted by the World Economic Forum in Geneva on 28 August 2014. The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br), the World Economic Forum (WEF), and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), will discuss these developments, in addition to the role of the multistakeholder NETmundial Initiative in energizing bottom-up, collaborative Internet governance solutions in a distributed ecosystem. Speakers: Virgilio Augusto Fernandes Almeida (CGI.br), Richard Samans (WEF) and Fadi Chehadé (ICANN). · Date: Thursday, 6 November 2014 · Time: 15:00 - 16:00 UTC (time converter: http://tinyurl.com/kpl4c62) · Audio Dial-in Numbers o USA/CAN Toll Free: 877-397-0286 o Int'l Toll Free: 719-325-4745 o Conference ID: 9037957 · Adobe Connect Login Information o https://djeholdings.adobeconnect.com/r8y97sljopf/ o Click on "Enter as Guest" o Enter your name o Click Enter Room A question and answer session will take place after remarks from the speakers. The webinar will be recorded and made available online for those unable to join. For questions, please contact secretariat at netmundial.org. --- International Toll-Free Dial-in Numbers Int'l toll free - Argentina: 0800 444 8243 Int'l toll free - Australia: 1 800 617 345 Int'l toll free - Austria: 0800 295 793 Int'l toll free - Bahamas: 1 800 203 8243 Int'l toll free - Belgium: 0 800 75 852 Int'l toll free - Brazil: 0 800 038 0502 Int'l toll free - Bulgaria: 00 800 115 1144 Int'l toll free - Chile: 123 0020 6703 Int'l toll free - China, Northern Region: 10 800 714 1511 Int'l toll free - China, Southern Region: 10 800 140 1377 Int'l toll free - Colombia: 01 800 518 1235 Int'l toll free - Czech Republic: 800 700 627 Int'l toll free - Denmark: 80 883 474 Int'l toll free - Dominican Republic: 1 888 751 4803 Int'l toll free - Ecuador: 1 800 020 509 Int'l toll free - France: 0 800 914 217 Int'l toll free - Germany: 0 800 183 0668 Int'l toll free - Greece: 00 800 161 2203 8243 Int'l toll free - Hong Kong: 800 968 835 Int'l toll free - Hungary: 06 800 112 85 Int'l toll free - India: 000 800 1007 606 Int'l toll free - Indonesia: 001 803 016 8243 Int'l toll free - Ireland: 1 800 947 407 Int'l toll free - Israel: 1 80 925 8243 Int'l toll free - Italy: 800 789 381 Int'l toll free - Japan: 00348 0040 0942 Int'l toll free - Latvia: 8000 3532 Int'l toll free - Lithuania: 8 800 3 09 71 Int'l toll free - Luxembourg: 800 2 4396 Int'l toll free - Malaysia: 1800 81 4728 Int'l toll free - Mexico: 001 800 514 8243 Int'l toll free - Monaco: 800 93 601 Int'l toll free - Netherlands: 0 800 022 1719 Int'l toll free - New Zealand: 0 800 451 591 Int'l toll free - Norway: 800 188 28 Int'l toll free - Panama: 00 800 226 8243 Int'l toll free - Philippines: 1 800 111 016 50 Int'l toll free - Poland: 00 800 112 41 48 Int'l toll free - Portugal: 800 827 563 Int'l toll free - Russian Federation: 810 800 2920 1012 Int'l toll free - Singapore, Singapore: 800 101 2323 Int'l toll free - Slovakia: 0800 606 370 Int'l toll free - Slovenia: 0 800 80441 Int'l toll free - South Africa: 0 800 982 293 Int'l toll free - South Korea, Korea, Republic Of: 003 0813 2347 Int'l toll free - Spain: 900 937 669 Int'l toll free - Sweden: 02 079 4840 Int'l toll free - Switzerland: 0 800 890 126 Int'l toll free - Taiwan: 00 801 127 460 Int'l toll free - Thailand: 001 800 156 203 8243 Int'l toll free - Trinidad and Tobago: 1800 203 8243 Int'l toll free - United Arab Emirates: 800 017 0998 Int'l toll free - United Kingdom: 0 808 101 7162 Int'l toll free - Uruguay: 0004 019 0352 Int'l toll free - Venezuela: 0 800 100 8542 -- Secretariat, NETmundial Initiative -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Nov 4 21:54:53 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:24:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] India and Multistakehoolderism In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642811@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20141104134758.GA1006@nic.fr> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164280E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642811@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <5459917D.4070904@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 04 November 2014 11:13 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > FYI > > http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/features/smartbuy/tech-news/india-may-dilute-stand-on-net-control/article6524088.ece Hi Wolfgang Very interesting move, largely in keeping with how things have been in India I would say. But I do hope that with all these different pieces being moved India would soon be able to form a good and relatively complete picture of how how it sees IG, both at the global level and at Indian level. Right now there are just too many ambiguities about what part of IG is being spoken of, and how is it proposed t be dealt with. You would of course have noted how muddled and inaccurate the following part of the press report is .. "Globally, there is a debate on who should control the working of the Internet. At present, a US-based body called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers or ICANN, governs the broad functioning of the Internet." Now if indeed the referred note is speaking about critical Internet resources management work, India and (indeed 90 percent of world's countries) have always supported ICANN and its family of insitutions to keep doing it. (In fact, on a somewhat different count, Just Net Coalition has asked for this system to be recognised and incorporated in international law and agreement, something which the latest India's position of IANA transition also asks for such an reconsigning internal law) ... I will request you and others, lets stop talking whether MS or ML (multistakeholder or multilateral), but speak about what precise institutional system and how it works, or is supposed to work. Lets work on clear details and not slogans. I have asked you a thousand times but you would not respond - do you think that the CoE Council on Internet issues (it is called media something, and with which you have worked) - which takes expert inputs (like it did of your experts committee) and holds stakeholder consultations and then adopts what it thinks fit to adopt in the council which is inter-gov - as a multistakeholder system or not. If not, two questions (1) have you told them so much when you were appointed an expert and in your other numerous interactions with them and (2) what is your proposal as to how the CoE council on Internet issues should work. (I am giving this example only so that we can talk about exact and precise issues and institutional systems as well as possible alternatives.) Everyone agrees that technical and day to day administration should be done by MS systems, within higher public policy principles that should be administered in a arms length manner with clearly laid out process. However *determining" public policy issues is a different matter, and it should involve deep stakeholder consultations but needs decision making by people's representatives alone... This is my view, and if yours is different lets hear about it. But on a precise and clear level, and not theoretical abstract stuff... 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 5 01:19:42 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 00:19:42 -0600 Subject: [governance] Call for Contributions: Combating counterfeit devices at the ITU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20141105061942.GA19361@hserus.net> While I know that fake / substandard electronic and other components is a huge problem, potentially causing loss of life - such as where it gets used in military (and potentially also civilian) aircraft, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18155293 The fake component as a security risk also needs to draw a distinction between those, and knockoff electronic products that may bear a cosmetic resemblance to a more popular / more expensive one (which the IP lobby would doubtless be interested in, but I am not at all sure whether civil society should care to intervene on that aspect of things) There is already a lot of industry attention to supply chain integrity that plays into this effort, and it is one of those rare cases where there is consensus worldwide on the need for such integrity. Nobody from any country wants fakes to turn up in aircraft, critical infrastructure etc that they manufacture or are responsible for. What, additionally can civil society contribute to this? Maybe the other part about treating employees of suppliers in LDC economies more humanely than they are, but that's not quite germane to this topic (or maybe it is, underpaid and exploited employees are very likely to turn to corruption, or sabotage or both as a motive to introduce fake components into gear that they manufacture). I'd welcome the list's thoughts. --srs Anja Kovacs [05/11/14 11:33 +0530]: >Dear all, > >During the ITU Plenipot, a small group of us had a meeting with Mr. Zhao, >Secretary-General elect of the ITU, to share with him the ways in which >civil society has already contributed to the work of the ITU and how we >hope to build on this in the future. > >During this conversation, we mentioned as one example of civil society's >contribution to the Plenipot the work some of us have been involved in >regarding counterfeit devices and the importance of considering user rights >in battling such devices. In response, the ITU flagged this *call for >contributions to an ITU event on Combating Counterfeit and Substandard ICT >Devices*, which will take place later this month in Geneva. > >http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/WSHP_counterfeit.aspx > >Though the last date for contributions has strictly speaking gone, the ITU >has been glad to extent it until 10 November, in the hope that at least >some from civil society would then still be able to make an input. > >It would be great if some here could indeed do so! > >Thanks and all the best, >Anja > > > >-- >Dr. Anja Kovacs >The Internet Democracy Project > >+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >www.internetdemocracy.in >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 5 03:39:16 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 09:39:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] Republican Congress Message-ID: I would be incidently interested in comments on the impact of a fully Republican Congress on the NTIA/executive+international to FCC/legislative+domestic switch. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Nov 5 06:37:33 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 05:37:33 -0600 Subject: [governance] India and Multistakehoolderism In-Reply-To: <5459917D.4070904@itforchange.net> References: <20141104134758.GA1006@nic.fr> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164280E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642811@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5459917D.4070904@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 8:54 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 04 November 2014 11:13 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> >> FYI >> >> >> http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/features/smartbuy/tech-news/india-may-dilute-stand-on-net-control/article6524088.ece > > > Hi Wolfgang > > Everyone agrees that technical and day to day administration should be done > by MS systems, within higher public policy principles that should be > administered in a arms length manner with clearly laid out process. India didn't believe that when they put their original proposal forward at PP14! It called for a major re-engineering in day to day operations of internetworking. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Nov 5 09:02:17 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 19:32:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] India and Multistakehoolderism In-Reply-To: References: <20141104134758.GA1006@nic.fr> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164280E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642811@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5459917D.4070904@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <545A2DE9.8050306@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 05 November 2014 05:07 PM, McTim wrote: > On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 8:54 PM, parminder wrote: >> On Tuesday 04 November 2014 11:13 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >>> FYI >>> >>> >>> http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/features/smartbuy/tech-news/india-may-dilute-stand-on-net-control/article6524088.ece >> >> Hi Wolfgang >> > > > >> Everyone agrees that technical and day to day administration should be done >> by MS systems, within higher public policy principles that should be >> administered in a arms length manner with clearly laid out process. > India didn't believe that when they put their original proposal forward at PP14! India asked for laying public policy principles for management of addressing resource in collaboration with other concerned stakeholders and organisations. It did not comment on who should undertake 'technical and day to day administration'. My views on the proposal were sent to this list a while ago... I do not agree with all the proposed directions in which principles were sought to be developed. > > It called for a major re-engineering in day to day operations of > internetworking. > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Nov 5 09:53:23 2014 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 15:53:23 +0100 (CET) Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <328601cff7c2$f766cfa0$e6346ee0$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> <328601cff7c2$f766cfa0$e6346ee0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2029954545.19386.1415199203324.JavaMail.www@wwinf1c15> Dear Michael   I agree with your statement on the prevanece of  accountability and public interest.    For the sake of completion to your suggestion and, about and beyond, to the current debate upon the relevance of MSH, please see the document hereafter :   http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/11/opinion-global-governance-we-need-to-bring-civil-society-to-the-table/ A very interesting and useful reading since its thematic, namely global governance (of which IG is (only) a subset), originates from far before the WSIS ... and (for that reason?) doesn't mention the MSH. Phew ... One interesting path for CSOs involved in IG would be to join forces and establish/take profit of synergies with FIM - Forum for Democratic Global Governance that deals with participatory democracy at the highest (multilateral) level. In other words, enshrine Internet Governance in a wider thematic/framework, namely Global Governance (GG), or -at least- deal with IG in full consistence with GG. This would enrich our debate and balance multistakeholdership's role, as well as it would help us to give it an appropriate place in our approach and process.   Best regards   Jean-Louis Fullsack   > Message du 04/11/14 01:05 > De : "michael gurstein" > A : "'Sivasubramanian M'" > Copie à : "'Jeremy Malcolm'" , governance at lists.igcaucus.org, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net, forum at justnetcoalition.org > Objet : RE: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > The issue is not “participation” but “accountability”.   To whom are these “stakeholders” accountable apart from to themselves or to whomever has paid for their participation?  Are their formal procedures for accountability, are their relationship to their funders transparent, if one group of stakeholders or simply one group of participant concerned about the nature of the participation/representation of another group what measures are available to challenge that participation and under what terms?   Who is accountable to ensure “the public interest”?   How is one able to ensure the “accountability” of the entire process and to would the entire process be accountable?   Of course, there are flaws and failures but it is quite simple to answer each of the above for “democratic” decision making processes… but I’m still waiting for someone to enlighten me as to how MS process can be held accountable.   M   From: Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 12:36 PM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: Jeremy Malcolm; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org > Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations   It is not fair to say that the Multistakeholder model restricts participation. In fact the opposite is true because this new model has a working framework in place for bringing in participants other than elected representatives and appointed functionaries ( would not be very wrong to class these them both under "Government") to the table. And it is too early in the evolutionary phase of multistakeholder model to draw a conclusion that the participating stakeholders are not representative enough.    The contrary of what you said is true. By its definition, by its intentions, and by the framework already in place, Multistakeholderism DOES extend AND broaden the opportunity for EFFECTIVE participation.    Sivasubramanian M     On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this by putting the condition of “stakeholdership”     ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Nov 5 11:06:56 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 17:06:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] [Ianaplan] A Libre IUser community Draft Message-ID: Dear all, In order to permit a normal work of the IETF/WG/IANAPLAN that has committed to consider proposals from other communities, and due to the I_D sumission cut-off period we had not anticipated, we have formally created a small Libre IUWG at http://iuwg.net to publish and complete the draft we had prepared as a contribution from an RFC 6852 small global community/NTIA stakeholder. This unplaned WG will formalize in the coming days/weeks. To please Jay Daley: we are Libre members of the Montpellier area where we hold the RMLL in july, members of few friendly specialized lists of mine, a Libre development lab in the cyberagora field, the founders of a small communities/villages oriented Libre non-profit Digital Services Provider under incroporation, etc.. So, it is likely that our IP addresses will sometimes be in the same geographical area, and probably from our own AS (planned for Jannuary 2015). :-) No to slow down the clear compromise process we propose we have only updated a few words in our draft 0.0, (prepared for an IETF/WG) in order to address the issue in the perspective that a separate WG or SDO shares with the IETF, IRT our own names, numbers and parameters referent registries for our users. You will find the draft at the http://iuwg.net/images/draft-iuwg-intlnet-sdo-registry-relations.00.pdf We understand that the WG/IANAPLAN will consider in a meeting on Nov 10 if they want to amalgamate (some of) our positions within a WG/IANAPLAN revised draft or if we will have to advance our positions separately. We will therefore not discuss them outsie of the WG/IANAPLAN until their decision, but we can provide additional inputs. Please note that our focus is not on the political aspects of the US Governance of the Internet (NTIA vs FCC) but on our best interests in the global ITU, IG, Russia/China, Libre/Oligarchic, regalian/business/civil, etc multi-macro/micro-stakeholder context, and mostly on the various MYCANN plug-ins developments being considered or under way. Best jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Nov 5 11:10:05 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 10:10:05 -0600 Subject: [governance] India and Multistakehoolderism In-Reply-To: <545A2DE9.8050306@itforchange.net> References: <20141104134758.GA1006@nic.fr> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164280E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642811@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5459917D.4070904@itforchange.net> <545A2DE9.8050306@itforchange.net> Message-ID: People can judge for themselves: http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S14-PP-C-0098!!MSW-E.pdf See 4, 5 and 6 for how "day-today aoprations" would have been changed. On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 8:02 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Wednesday 05 November 2014 05:07 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 8:54 PM, parminder >> wrote: >>> >>> On Tuesday 04 November 2014 11:13 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >>>> >>>> FYI >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/features/smartbuy/tech-news/india-may-dilute-stand-on-net-control/article6524088.ece >>> >>> >>> Hi Wolfgang >>> >> >> >> >>> Everyone agrees that technical and day to day administration should be >>> done >>> by MS systems, within higher public policy principles that should be >>> administered in a arms length manner with clearly laid out process. >> >> India didn't believe that when they put their original proposal forward at >> PP14! > > > India asked for laying public policy principles for management of addressing > resource in collaboration with other concerned stakeholders and > organisations. It did not comment on who should undertake 'technical and day > to day administration'. My views on the proposal were sent to this list a > while ago... I do not agree with all the proposed directions in which > principles were sought to be developed. > > > >> >> It called for a major re-engineering in day to day operations of >> internetworking. >> >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 5 21:46:39 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 08:16:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Request to mailing list Forum rejected In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <14982ff0f10.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Dear JNC members, It might be a bright idea to stop copying your mailing list on email sent to the caucus if you have and enforce such a rule as this one below. --- Forwarded message --- From: forum-owner at justnetcoalition.org Date: November 6, 2014 8:08:20 AM Subject: Request to mailing list Forum rejected To: suresh at hserus.net Your request to the Forum mailing list Posting of your message titled "RE: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations" has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the following reason for rejecting your request: "Non-members are not allowed to post messages to this list." Any questions or comments should be directed to the list administrator at: forum-owner at justnetcoalition.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 nb at bollow.ch Thu Nov 6 06:06:44 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 12:06:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Request to mailing list Forum rejected In-Reply-To: <14982ff0f10.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <14982ff0f10.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20141106120644.0a7800b3@quill> On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 08:16:39 +0530 Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Dear JNC members, It might be a bright idea to stop copying your > mailing list on email sent to the caucus if you have and enforce such > a rule as this one below. Actually the message "Non-members are not allowed to post messages to this list" is a default message in the Mailman mailing list software and it is not totally accurate for the “forum” mailing list hosted by JNC. I'll make sure that it gets changed. It is true that discussions on the forum mailing list are supposed to be among subscribers of that mailing list, and that it is therefore generally not to be recommended to crosspost discussion postings to the “forum” and in addition one or more other mailing lists. However: Everyone (including non-subscribers) is still welcome to use the forum list address to bring matters to the attention of JNC which they think will be of interest. Such announcement type postings which are of interest to JNC are welcome and will be approved even if they are from a non-subscriber and even if they are cross-posted to many lists. Greetings, Norbert co-convenor, Just Net Coalition > > > --- Forwarded message --- > From: forum-owner at justnetcoalition.org > Date: November 6, 2014 8:08:20 AM > Subject: Request to mailing list Forum rejected > To: suresh at hserus.net > > Your request to the Forum mailing list > > Posting of your message titled "RE: [bestbits] [governance] Re: > [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot > joint recommendations" > > has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the > following reason for rejecting your request: > > "Non-members are not allowed to post messages to this list." > > Any questions or comments should be directed to the list administrator > at: > > forum-owner at justnetcoalition.org > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Nov 6 12:02:22 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 18:02:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] NetMundial References: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> <5AD33DB64739402889AFACEF8A60440B@Toshiba> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642802@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <74439AF0-0530-4D07-9C15-A164880E4B96@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642831@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Ian, it was good to raise some question in today´s webinar, in particular to the election/selection process. Already in the IGF Improvement WG of the CSTD we argued in favour of a procedure that respected/recognized platforms of the four stakeholder groups make their own selections. More or less this was also the case for the NetMundial bodies. So lets just do it. We should come up with a group of the five from our network of CS organisations. BTW, I personally would be interested to get the European seat in the CS group of five. So I put my candidature Forward to the CS Group. 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 jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com Thu Nov 6 12:06:54 2014 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 18:06:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] NetMundial In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642831@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> <5AD33DB64739402889AFACEF8A60440B@Toshiba> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642802@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <74439AF0-0530-4D07-9C15-A164880E4B96@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642831@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Self-appointed: a perfect example Thanks WK Le 6 nov. 2014 à 18:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit : > Hi Ian, > > it was good to raise some question in today´s webinar, in particular to the election/selection process. Already in the IGF Improvement WG of the CSTD we argued in favour of a procedure that respected/recognized platforms of the four stakeholder groups make their own selections. More or less this was also the case for the NetMundial bodies. So lets just do it. We should come up with a group of the five from our network of CS organisations. > > > BTW, I personally would be interested to get the European seat in the CS group of five. So I put my candidature Forward to the CS Group. > > 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 caribe at entropia.blog.br Thu Nov 6 12:18:40 2014 From: caribe at entropia.blog.br (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Carlos_Rebello_Carib=E9?=) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 15:18:40 -0200 Subject: [governance] NetMundial In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642831@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> <5AD33DB64739402889AFACEF8A60440B@Toshiba> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642802@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <74439AF0-0530-4D07-9C15-A164880E4B96@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642831@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <00EA7234-A8B7-45E2-9177-1FA0F28FFE6B@entropia.blog.br> Wolfgang your candidature appears amazing and Europe will be well represented. I don't know if someone from LAC presented their candidature, but I think about some names: Joana Varon (Brazil) or Fatima Cabronero (Argentina) []s Joao Carlos Caribe Em 06/11/2014, às 15:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang escreveu: > Hi Ian, > > it was good to raise some question in today´s webinar, in particular to the election/selection process. Already in the IGF Improvement WG of the CSTD we argued in favour of a procedure that respected/recognized platforms of the four stakeholder groups make their own selections. More or less this was also the case for the NetMundial bodies. So lets just do it. We should come up with a group of the five from our network of CS organisations. > > > BTW, I personally would be interested to get the European seat in the CS group of five. So I put my candidature Forward to the CS Group. > > 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 -- João Carlos R. Caribé Consultor Skype joaocaribe (021) 9 8761 1967 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Nov 6 13:10:09 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 19:10:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] NetMundial In-Reply-To: <00EA7234-A8B7-45E2-9177-1FA0F28FFE6B@entropia.blog.br> References: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> <5AD33DB64739402889AFACEF8A60440B@Toshiba> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642802@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <74439AF0-0530-4D07-9C15-A164880E4B96@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642831@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00EA7234-A8B7-45E2-9177-1FA0F28FFE6B@entropia.blog.br> Message-ID: <3FB9C416-7864-4D8A-AC3D-02065AA90906@theglobaljournal.net> You are so right Joao: "amazing" is the perfect "word" to describe this auto-appointment, sorry self designation! ;-) As the French saying goes on: "jamais mieux servi que par soi-même". Europe will be best served? Well, WK is certainly a seasoned IG usual suspect, and a nice MS storyteller, but in terms of representativity I have a legitimate doubt. JC Le 6 nov. 2014 à 18:18, João Carlos Rebello Caribé a écrit : > Wolfgang your candidature appears amazing and Europe will be well represented. > > I don't know if someone from LAC presented their candidature, but I think about some names: > > Joana Varon (Brazil) or > Fatima Cabronero (Argentina) > > []s > Joao Carlos Caribe > > Em 06/11/2014, às 15:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang escreveu: > >> Hi Ian, >> >> it was good to raise some question in today´s webinar, in particular to the election/selection process. Already in the IGF Improvement WG of the CSTD we argued in favour of a procedure that respected/recognized platforms of the four stakeholder groups make their own selections. More or less this was also the case for the NetMundial bodies. So lets just do it. We should come up with a group of the five from our network of CS organisations. >> >> >> BTW, I personally would be interested to get the European seat in the CS group of five. So I put my candidature Forward to the CS Group. >> >> 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 > > -- > João Carlos R. Caribé > Consultor > Skype joaocaribe > (021) 9 8761 1967 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jmalcolm at eff.org Thu Nov 6 13:23:31 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 10:23:31 -0800 Subject: [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference Message-ID: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> I attended the NETmundial phone conference this morning, interested to find out what had changed since the previous launch in August, which had drawn criticism not only from civil society but more broadly. The NETmundial Initiative is presented as not being a centralised organisation but rather a platform to support distributed governance of the Internet. It brings together "Enablers" (currently CGI.br, ICANN and WEF) and proposed "Solutions". The solutions can be contributed by anyone in crowdsourcing fashion, and can invite partnerships or calls for assistance. The focus of the Initiative is on mapping what already exists, and on developing solutions where there are gaps. There have been some changes since what was presented in August, mainly to de-emphasise the role of the WEF, which now notionally has its own separate but parallel Internet initiative. However WEF will continue to enjoy a permanent seat on the NETmundial Initiative's Coordination Council, and contrary to previous indications, the name of the initiative will not be changed to remove the reference to "NETmundial". This is because the NETmundial Principles are meant to be the foundation for the Initiative's work (I questioned whether this meant that those Principles are set in stone, and received an equivocal response that the Initiative might work on evolving them if someone proposed this.) The Coordination Council will contain 25 members, 5 of which are permanent seats for CGI.br , WEF, ICANN, the I* group, and the IGF MAG. Note: no permanent seat for civil society, except through CGI.br and the IGF. The other 20 members will be distributed across four stakeholder groups which are (1) academia, the technical community and foundations, (2) civil society, (3) governments and intergovernmental organisations, and (4) the private sector - and across all geographical regions. There was much emphasis on how "bottom up" this initiative is, which drew skeptical responses in the webconference chat room. Although they did invite the stakeholder groups to nominate their own representatives, ultimately ICANN, WEF and CGI.br together reserved the right to decide between them if too many nominations were received. (From civil society's point of view, we would aim, if we are to nominate candidates at all, to do so centrally through our IG Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in order to avoid giving WEF that power.) Nominations are due within a month, so we really need to decide within a week whether we intend to participate at all, and if so, to proceed to a nomination process through the CSCG. -- 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 244 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Nov 6 14:16:57 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 20:16:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] ITU References: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> <5AD33DB64739402889AFACEF8A60440B@Toshiba> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642802@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <74439AF0-0530-4D07-9C15-A164880E4B96@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642831@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00EA7234-A8B7-45E2-9177-1FA0F28FFE6B@entropia.blog.br> <3FB9C416-7864-4D8A-AC3D-02065AA90906@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642832@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI https://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2014/62.aspx 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Nov 6 14:21:37 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 06:21:37 +1100 Subject: [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference In-Reply-To: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> References: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> Message-ID: <389457F6D8174B2589C237F3B166ABAB@Toshiba> Yes – I agree with Jeremy that we really do need to decide within a week if we are to participate, and if so how. I notice a few people putting names forward on our lists already; if for the next few days we can have discussions here and elsewhere as to whether or not to participate, that would help to refine an approach and a possible call for nominations in a few days. The NetMundial.org site is now revised to reflect this new initiative and the call for nominations is outlined at https://www.netmundial.org/coordination-council-nominations. Names of all people nominated are automatically made public immediately - I think a good feature. CSCG is going to have to make a decision on whether to be involved or not, and if so how. To assist this, I think there are many people reading this list who listened in on the call – and in some cases were not able to ask questions – so it would be good to have feedback on their impressions from these people and others. For me as an individual – I think the concept of a forum to deal with orphan issues is good and needed. However, irrespective of how good the intentions of WEF ICANN and CGI.br are or are not, there is a substantial structural issue if WEF decides who the representatives of civil society are. I think they realise they have a problem there as well, and would welcome some sort of solution. So I think there is room for us to offer a way out of their dilemma. Putting forward nominations may not be the only way of doing this. Ian Peter From: Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 5:23 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference I attended the NETmundial phone conference this morning, interested to find out what had changed since the previous launch in August, which had drawn criticism not only from civil society but more broadly. The NETmundial Initiative is presented as not being a centralised organisation but rather a platform to support distributed governance of the Internet. It brings together "Enablers" (currently CGI.br, ICANN and WEF) and proposed "Solutions". The solutions can be contributed by anyone in crowdsourcing fashion, and can invite partnerships or calls for assistance. The focus of the Initiative is on mapping what already exists, and on developing solutions where there are gaps. There have been some changes since what was presented in August, mainly to de-emphasise the role of the WEF, which now notionally has its own separate but parallel Internet initiative. However WEF will continue to enjoy a permanent seat on the NETmundial Initiative's Coordination Council, and contrary to previous indications, the name of the initiative will not be changed to remove the reference to "NETmundial". This is because the NETmundial Principles are meant to be the foundation for the Initiative's work (I questioned whether this meant that those Principles are set in stone, and received an equivocal response that the Initiative might work on evolving them if someone proposed this.) The Coordination Council will contain 25 members, 5 of which are permanent seats for CGI.br, WEF, ICANN, the I* group, and the IGF MAG. Note: no permanent seat for civil society, except through CGI.br and the IGF. The other 20 members will be distributed across four stakeholder groups which are (1) academia, the technical community and foundations, (2) civil society, (3) governments and intergovernmental organisations, and (4) the private sector - and across all geographical regions. There was much emphasis on how "bottom up" this initiative is, which drew skeptical responses in the webconference chat room. Although they did invite the stakeholder groups to nominate their own representatives, ultimately ICANN, WEF and CGI.br together reserved the right to decide between them if too many nominations were received. (From civil society's point of view, we would aim, if we are to nominate candidates at all, to do so centrally through our IG Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in order to avoid giving WEF that power.) Nominations are due within a month, so we really need to decide within a week whether we intend to participate at all, and if so, to proceed to a nomination process through the CSCG. -- 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 6 15:09:23 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 16:09:23 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference In-Reply-To: <389457F6D8174B2589C237F3B166ABAB@Toshiba> References: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> <389457F6D8174B2589C237F3B166ABAB@Toshiba> Message-ID: Jeremy suggests " (From civil society's point of view, we would aim, if we are to nominate candidates at all, to do so centrally through our IG Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in order to avoid giving WEF that power.)" but since the nomination process begins from the individual that may not be possible. CSCG may make a selection, but still not everyone in civil society subscribes to the idea of CSCG. And the Netmundial Initiative isn't clear about the process to demonstrate that one "belongs" to a particular group. And what happens if CSCG decides not to be involved? At a time when civil society needs to search within itself for the areas in which it can present a united front to defend itself and its rights, it seems instead to be being split apart and fragmented, and becoming more and more helpless. Or perhaps I'm just being pessimistic today :-( Deirdre On 6 November 2014 15:21, Ian Peter wrote: > Yes – I agree with Jeremy that we really do need to decide within a > week if we are to participate, and if so how. I notice a few people putting > names forward on our lists already; if for the next few days we can have > discussions here and elsewhere as to whether or not to participate, that > would help to refine an approach and a possible call for nominations in a > few days. > > The NetMundial.org site is now revised to reflect this new initiative and > the call for nominations is outlined at > https://www.netmundial.org/coordination-council-nominations. Names of all > people nominated are automatically made public immediately - I think a > good feature. > > CSCG is going to have to make a decision on whether to be involved or not, > and if so how. To assist this, I think there are many people reading this > list who listened in on the call – and in some cases were not able to ask > questions – so it would be good to have feedback on their impressions from > these people and others. > > For me as an individual – I think the concept of a forum to deal with > orphan issues is good and needed. However, irrespective of how good the > intentions of WEF ICANN and CGI.br are or are not, there is a substantial > structural issue if WEF decides who the representatives of civil society > are. I think they realise they have a problem there as well, and would > welcome some sort of solution. So I think there is room for us to offer a > way out of their dilemma. Putting forward nominations may not be the only > way of doing this. > > Ian Peter > > > > > > *From:* Jeremy Malcolm > *Sent:* Friday, November 07, 2014 5:23 AM > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference > > I attended the NETmundial phone conference this morning, interested to > find out what had changed since the previous launch in August, which had > drawn criticism not only from civil society but more broadly. > > The NETmundial Initiative is presented as not being a centralised > organisation but rather a platform to support distributed governance of the > Internet. It brings together "Enablers" (currently CGI.br, ICANN and WEF) > and proposed "Solutions". The solutions can be contributed by anyone in > crowdsourcing fashion, and can invite partnerships or calls for assistance. > The focus of the Initiative is on mapping what already exists, and on > developing solutions where there are gaps. > > There have been some changes since what was presented in August, mainly to > de-emphasise the role of the WEF, which now notionally has its own separate > but parallel Internet initiative. However WEF will continue to enjoy a > permanent seat on the NETmundial Initiative's Coordination Council, and > contrary to previous indications, the name of the initiative will not be > changed to remove the reference to "NETmundial". This is because the > NETmundial Principles are meant to be the foundation for the Initiative's > work (I questioned whether this meant that those Principles are set in > stone, and received an equivocal response that the Initiative might work on > evolving them if someone proposed this.) > > The Coordination Council will contain 25 members, 5 of which are permanent > seats for CGI.br, WEF, ICANN, > the I* group, and the IGF MAG. Note: no permanent seat for civil society, > except through CGI.br and the IGF. The other 20 members will be > distributed across four stakeholder groups which are (1) academia, the > technical community and foundations, (2) civil society, (3) governments and > intergovernmental organisations, and (4) the private sector - and across > all geographical regions. > > There was much emphasis on how "bottom up" this initiative is, which drew > skeptical responses in the webconference chat room. Although they did > invite the stakeholder groups to nominate their own representatives, > ultimately ICANN, WEF and CGI.br together reserved the right to decide > between them if too many nominations were received. (From civil society's > point of view, we would aim, if we are to nominate candidates at all, to do > so centrally through our IG Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in > order to avoid giving WEF that power.) > > Nominations are due within a month, so we really need to decide within a > week whether we intend to participate at all, and if so, to proceed to a > nomination process through the CSCG. > > -- > 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 :: > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Thu Nov 6 19:26:20 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 01:26:20 +0100 Subject: Fwd: [bestbits] [governance] NetMundial In-Reply-To: References: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> <5AD33DB64739402889AFACEF8A60440B@Toshiba> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642802@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <74439AF0-0530-4D07-9C15-A164880E4B96@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642831@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00EA7234-A8B7-45E2-9177-1FA0F28FFE6B@entropia.blog.br> <3FB9C416-7864-4D8A-AC3D-02065AA90906@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Louis Pouzin Date: Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 1:07 AM Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] NetMundial To: Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal < jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , João Carlos Rebello Caribé , "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, Ian Peter < ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, William Drake , Best Bits < bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Wolfgang is a talented colleague who can smell when the wind is shifting. He should rather promote his candidacy within the ICANN nebula, where he has been a well known activist for so long. Louis - - - On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > You are so right Joao: "amazing" is the perfect "word" to describe this > auto-appointment, sorry self designation! ;-) > > As the French saying goes on: "*jamais mieux servi que par soi-même*". > Europe will be best served? Well, WK is certainly a seasoned IG usual > suspect, and a nice MS storyteller, but in terms of representativity I have > a legitimate doubt. > > JC > > > Le 6 nov. 2014 à 18:18, João Carlos Rebello Caribé a écrit : > > Wolfgang your candidature appears amazing and Europe will be well > represented. > > I don't know if someone from LAC presented their candidature, but I think > about some names: > > Joana Varon (Brazil) or > Fatima Cabronero (Argentina) > > []s > Joao Carlos Caribe > > Em 06/11/2014, às 15:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang escreveu: > > Hi Ian, > > > it was good to raise some question in today´s webinar, in particular to > the election/selection process. Already in the IGF Improvement WG of the > CSTD we argued in favour of a procedure that respected/recognized platforms > of the four stakeholder groups make their own selections. More or less this > was also the case for the NetMundial bodies. So lets just do it. We should > come up with a group of the five from our network of CS organisations. > > > > BTW, I personally would be interested to get the European seat in the CS > group of five. So I put my candidature Forward to the CS Group. > > > 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 > > > -- > João Carlos R. Caribé > Consultor > Skype joaocaribe > (021) 9 8761 1967 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 6 20:18:58 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 02:18:58 +0100 Subject: Fwd: [bestbits] [governance] NetMundial Message-ID: Full support Hurrah for Wolfgang! for ***both*** nebulas in order to watch the collusions (at the end of the day this should form a single "global network solution". Please look at http://gsnetworks.org/ : the very lengthy documented comment on the NTIA annoucement published by Lynn St-Amour the very same day was a book co-authored with their Boss (Don Tapscott). Gsnetwork is sponsored by Google, State Department, Royal Bank of Canada, HP, Qualcomm, etc. etc. IMHP JCN should investigate on these good samaritans of ISOC. jfc ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Louis Pouzin <pouzin at enst.fr> Date: Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 1:07 AM Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] NetMundial To: Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, João Carlos Rebello Caribé <caribe at entropia.blog.br>, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>, Best Bits <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Wolfgang is a talented colleague who can smell when the wind is shifting. He should rather promote his candidacy within the ICANN nebula, where he has been a well known activist for so long. Louis - - - On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote: You are so right Joao: "amazing" is the perfect "word" to describe this auto-appointment, sorry self designation! ;-) As the French saying goes on: "jamais mieux servi que par soi-même". Europe will be best served? Well, WK is certainly a seasoned IG usual suspect, and a nice MS storyteller, but in terms of representativity I have a legitimate doubt. JC Le 6 nov. 2014 à 18:18, João Carlos Rebello Caribé a écrit : >Wolfgang your candidature appears amazing and >Europe will be well represented. >I don't know if someone from LAC presented their >candidature, but I think about some names: >Joana Varon (Brazil) or >Fatima Cabronero (Argentina) >[]s >Joao Carlos Caribe >Em 06/11/2014, às 15:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang escreveu: > >>Hi Ian, >>it was good to raise some question in today´s >>webinar, in particular to the >>election/selection process. Already in the IGF >>Improvement WG of the CSTD we argued in favour >>of a procedure that respected/recognized >>platforms of the four stakeholder groups make >>their own selections. More or less this was >>also the case for the NetMundial bodies. So >>lets just do it. We should come up with a group >>of the five from our network of CS organisations. >>BTW, I personally would be interested to get >>the European seat in the CS group of five. So I >>put my candidature Forward to the CS Group. >>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 >-- >João Carlos R. Caribé >Consultor >Skype joaocaribe >(021) 9 8761 1967 > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > >http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >For all other list information and functions, see: > >http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >Translate this email: >http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits 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 wjdrake at gmail.com Fri Nov 7 04:17:07 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 10:17:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference In-Reply-To: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> References: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> Message-ID: <0DC996BB-50B0-4FAA-8535-A2AF2B806633@gmail.com> Hi Thanks Jeremy for the summary. Just to flag one immediate issue about the CC: the four categories of participants don’t correspond to the nongovernmental ones used for Sao Paulo and 1NET, and "academia, the technical community and foundations” are tossed together into one basket. I’m not sure what process can be devised here to get those three distinct groupings to agree on 5 names, inter alia since foundations have not been organized and engaged in IG processes as a stakeholder group. Unless a coordinated solution can be found (e.g. 2/2/1), one can easily imagine them getting more than 5 nominations, in which case CGI.br, ICANN and WEF will end up having to pick their best guess of a mix those groups will accept. So making this work as a thoroughly bottom-up process could be a challenge even if CS and business can work out their respective issues. More differentiated baskets would have saved some headaches. How to constitute the CC is obviously just one of the questions that will have to be worked through. How exactly the platform would operate and what the CC’s role and responsibilities would be also are very much TBD. One could imagine the CC overseeing the design of the platform; serving as as a facilitator of connections when someone proposes a project and solicits partners/support; facilitating the dissemination of progress reports; etc. But should it do more than this? It’s not clear that the CC should be deciding which project proposals can be appear on the platform; specifying a framework for their formulation and conduct; overseeing their progress, and so on. I guess it will be for the CC to figure these things out in consultation with the wider communities. One thing I’d be reluctant to see it get into is elaborating on the NM Statement's principles. I believe you raised this possibility at the August meeting at WEF as well, and am not clear what you have in mind. A priori, I’d think that if the NMI wandered onto this turf, it would raise the stakes and become politicized and potentially divisive. Better to stick to being an open platform for project facilitation and leave the discussion/negotiation of governance frameworks to other more inclusive forums/processes, no? Best Bill > On Nov 6, 2014, at 7:23 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > I attended the NETmundial phone conference this morning, interested to find out what had changed since the previous launch in August, which had drawn criticism not only from civil society but more broadly. > > The NETmundial Initiative is presented as not being a centralised organisation but rather a platform to support distributed governance of the Internet. It brings together "Enablers" (currently CGI.br, ICANN and WEF) and proposed "Solutions". The solutions can be contributed by anyone in crowdsourcing fashion, and can invite partnerships or calls for assistance. The focus of the Initiative is on mapping what already exists, and on developing solutions where there are gaps. > > There have been some changes since what was presented in August, mainly to de-emphasise the role of the WEF, which now notionally has its own separate but parallel Internet initiative. However WEF will continue to enjoy a permanent seat on the NETmundial Initiative's Coordination Council, and contrary to previous indications, the name of the initiative will not be changed to remove the reference to "NETmundial". This is because the NETmundial Principles are meant to be the foundation for the Initiative's work (I questioned whether this meant that those Principles are set in stone, and received an equivocal response that the Initiative might work on evolving them if someone proposed this.) > > The Coordination Council will contain 25 members, 5 of which are permanent seats for CGI.br , WEF, ICANN, > the I* group, and the IGF MAG. Note: no permanent seat for civil society, except through CGI.br and the IGF. The other 20 members will be distributed across four stakeholder groups which are (1) academia, the technical community and foundations, (2) civil society, (3) governments and intergovernmental organisations, and (4) the private sector - and across all geographical regions. > > There was much emphasis on how "bottom up" this initiative is, which drew skeptical responses in the webconference chat room. Although they did invite the stakeholder groups to nominate their own representatives, ultimately ICANN, WEF and CGI.br together reserved the right to decide between them if too many nominations were received. (From civil society's point of view, we would aim, if we are to nominate candidates at all, to do so centrally through our IG Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in order to avoid giving WEF that power.) > > Nominations are due within a month, so we really need to decide within a week whether we intend to participate at all, and if so, to proceed to a nomination process through the CSCG. > > -- > 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 :: > *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Nov 7 04:28:42 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 10:28:42 +0100 Subject: AW: [bestbits] [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference References: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> <389457F6D8174B2589C237F3B166ABAB@Toshiba> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642834@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Deidre, we should remember the "good old WSIS days". We had a similar situation in Geneva during PrepCom 3 in September 2003 when civil society - which during PrepCom2 and the InterSessional in Paris made some progress in getting access and speaking rights also in working group meetings - were frustrated that the 96 proposals which were made by the CS Content & Themes Group were not reflected in the intergovernmental draft resolution. WSIS I president Sammassekou, a minister from Mali and now a civil society activist, did promise in the beginning of PrepCom3 to move "from turmoil to trust" but civil society argued that this is impossible if "input has no impact". I did oversee a comparative analysis (with 20 students) which compared the CS proposals with the intergovernmental draft declaration and we concluded that 96 percent of the proposals from CS were ignored by the intergovernmental council. We called this ignorance "governmental arrogance" and we had stormy meetings in the CS plenary in our daily morning sessions whether civil society should leave WSIS (and start street protests downtown in Geneva) or stay in the room. CS was split over this issue. At the end of the day we stayed in the room and drafted our own CS declaration which was handed over officially to the president of WSIS I in the closing session. This declaration became something like an official document which is sitll on the WSIS/ITU Website and worth to read. And it had a useful sideeffect: CS became more formally recognized in the second WSIS Phase and got its equal part in the WGIG and later in the IGF MAG and in CSTD Working Groups. It would be a pity if we would see now a split of CS moving towards NMI. This would weaken the impact CS can have in the process. I prefer to make my arguments inside the room. I have argued since more than 10 years, that the multistakeholder model works only with a strong CS as an equal parter. Multistakeholder mechanisms are neiter onestakehooder nor bi-stakeholder mechanisms (big government plus big business). It Needs a Balance. Znis is the reason why I use both "respective roles and equal footing" (which was realoized more or less in Dao Paulo). The same with ICANNs multistakeholder model. It works only with a strong ALAC/NCSG/NCUC. There is much more potential for ALAC (and NCSG) after ATLAS II. With other words, our "CS Group of the Five" (CSCG) should have a critical but constructive approach to the NMI. I say this as the co-founder of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), now one of the Group of the Five. With regard to NMI: Nothing is here pre-determined. This are empty pages and we can participate in writing good texts (as we did with the Sao Paulo Declaration of Internet Governance Principles (which I know have some weaknesses but are in general a good document with a lot of references to human rights). Wolfgang Jeremy suggests " (From civil society's point of view, we would aim, if we are to nominate candidates at all, to do so centrally through our IG Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in order to avoid giving WEF that power.)" but since the nomination process begins from the individual that may not be possible. CSCG may make a selection, but still not everyone in civil society subscribes to the idea of CSCG. And the Netmundial Initiative isn't clear about the process to demonstrate that one "belongs" to a particular group. And what happens if CSCG decides not to be involved? At a time when civil society needs to search within itself for the areas in which it can present a united front to defend itself and its rights, it seems instead to be being split apart and fragmented, and becoming more and more helpless. Or perhaps I'm just being pessimistic today :-( Deirdre On 6 November 2014 15:21, Ian Peter wrote: > Yes - I agree with Jeremy that we really do need to decide within a > week if we are to participate, and if so how. I notice a few people putting > names forward on our lists already; if for the next few days we can have > discussions here and elsewhere as to whether or not to participate, that > would help to refine an approach and a possible call for nominations in a > few days. > > The NetMundial.org site is now revised to reflect this new initiative and > the call for nominations is outlined at > https://www.netmundial.org/coordination-council-nominations. Names of all > people nominated are automatically made public immediately - I think a > good feature. > > CSCG is going to have to make a decision on whether to be involved or not, > and if so how. To assist this, I think there are many people reading this > list who listened in on the call - and in some cases were not able to ask > questions - so it would be good to have feedback on their impressions from > these people and others. > > For me as an individual - I think the concept of a forum to deal with > orphan issues is good and needed. However, irrespective of how good the > intentions of WEF ICANN and CGI.br are or are not, there is a substantial > structural issue if WEF decides who the representatives of civil society > are. I think they realise they have a problem there as well, and would > welcome some sort of solution. So I think there is room for us to offer a > way out of their dilemma. Putting forward nominations may not be the only > way of doing this. > > Ian Peter > > > > > > *From:* Jeremy Malcolm > *Sent:* Friday, November 07, 2014 5:23 AM > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference > > I attended the NETmundial phone conference this morning, interested to > find out what had changed since the previous launch in August, which had > drawn criticism not only from civil society but more broadly. > > The NETmundial Initiative is presented as not being a centralised > organisation but rather a platform to support distributed governance of the > Internet. It brings together "Enablers" (currently CGI.br, ICANN and WEF) > and proposed "Solutions". The solutions can be contributed by anyone in > crowdsourcing fashion, and can invite partnerships or calls for assistance. > The focus of the Initiative is on mapping what already exists, and on > developing solutions where there are gaps. > > There have been some changes since what was presented in August, mainly to > de-emphasise the role of the WEF, which now notionally has its own separate > but parallel Internet initiative. However WEF will continue to enjoy a > permanent seat on the NETmundial Initiative's Coordination Council, and > contrary to previous indications, the name of the initiative will not be > changed to remove the reference to "NETmundial". This is because the > NETmundial Principles are meant to be the foundation for the Initiative's > work (I questioned whether this meant that those Principles are set in > stone, and received an equivocal response that the Initiative might work on > evolving them if someone proposed this.) > > The Coordination Council will contain 25 members, 5 of which are permanent > seats for CGI.br, WEF, ICANN, > the I* group, and the IGF MAG. Note: no permanent seat for civil society, > except through CGI.br and the IGF. The other 20 members will be > distributed across four stakeholder groups which are (1) academia, the > technical community and foundations, (2) civil society, (3) governments and > intergovernmental organisations, and (4) the private sector - and across > all geographical regions. > > There was much emphasis on how "bottom up" this initiative is, which drew > skeptical responses in the webconference chat room. Although they did > invite the stakeholder groups to nominate their own representatives, > ultimately ICANN, WEF and CGI.br together reserved the right to decide > between them if too many nominations were received. (From civil society's > point of view, we would aim, if we are to nominate candidates at all, to do > so centrally through our IG Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in > order to avoid giving WEF that power.) > > Nominations are due within a month, so we really need to decide within a > week whether we intend to participate at all, and if so, to proceed to a > nomination process through the CSCG. > > -- > 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 :: > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Nov 7 14:43:21 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 11:43:21 -0800 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference In-Reply-To: <0DC996BB-50B0-4FAA-8535-A2AF2B806633@gmail.com> References: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> <0DC996BB-50B0-4FAA-8535-A2AF2B806633@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Nov 7, 2014, at 1:17 AM, William Drake wrote: > > One thing I’d be reluctant to see it get into is elaborating on the NM Statement's principles. I believe you raised this possibility at the August meeting at WEF as well, and am not clear what you have in mind. A priori, I’d think that if the NMI wandered onto this turf, it would raise the stakes and become politicized and potentially divisive. Better to stick to being an open platform for project facilitation and leave the discussion/negotiation of governance frameworks to other more inclusive forums/processes, no? I definitely don't want (what is shaping into) such a corporate-dominated initiative elaborating on the NETmundial principles either. But the reason I keep raising this is twofold - first, to raise the stakes for other more inclusive forums/processes that have become complacent and failed to realise their potential, for which NETmundial could (and at the meeting in São Paulo, did) provide some healthy competition and the impetus for further reforms that would prevent them slipping into irrelevance. Second, due to the choice of name. It seems a bit odd when the most distinctive thing about NETmundial was that it produced a tangible outcome, that the continuation of NETmundial using its name is precluded from doing that. I would still rather they didn't freeride on the goodwill of the NETmundial name, for which may people feel a sense of community ownership, for something that is quite different. (But I realise that it's a tough argument to make when two of the main players behind NETmundial are driving the initiative.) -- 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Fri Nov 7 16:40:53 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 16:40:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference In-Reply-To: <389457F6D8174B2589C237F3B166ABAB@Toshiba> References: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> <389457F6D8174B2589C237F3B166ABAB@Toshiba> Message-ID: <545D3C65.4030007@acm.org> Hi, I would recommend a dual strategy. Let people nominate and self-nominate on the NMI site, and have CSCG make a recommendation from among those (self)nominations. This way we don't ignore their process, but we do the choosing for them. As for whether we participate or not, people from CS will participate it there is an opportunity to do so, whether and particular decides it is a good idea or not. And CS, which is always arguing for our voice, should participate anytime we are given a chance to do so. So yeah, if offered seats CS, will occupy them - only the selection process remains a question. And if there are choices to be made about who sits in the seats, the CSCG should weigh in on the choice. Also while I prefer to see nominations over self-nominations, i think both are appropriate both from experienced volunteers and new voices. I think we are always self selected in some way when we put ourselves forward to be chosen or rejected (and sometimes slammed) by those who make it their business to judge. avri On 06-Nov-14 14:21, Ian Peter wrote: > Yes – I agree with Jeremy that we really do need to decide within a week if we are to participate, and if so how. I notice a few people putting names forward on our lists already; if for the next few days we can have discussions here and elsewhere as to whether or not to participate, that would help to refine an approach and a possible call for nominations in a few days. > > The NetMundial.org site is now revised to reflect this new initiative and the call for nominations is outlined at https://www.netmundial.org/coordination-council-nominations. Names of all people nominated are automatically made public immediately - I think a good feature. > > CSCG is going to have to make a decision on whether to be involved or not, and if so how. To assist this, I think there are many people reading this list who listened in on the call – and in some cases were not able to ask questions – so it would be good to have feedback on their impressions from these people and others. > > For me as an individual – I think the concept of a forum to deal with orphan issues is good and needed. However, irrespective of how good the intentions of WEF ICANN and CGI.br are or are not, there is a substantial structural issue if WEF decides who the representatives of civil society are. I think they realise they have a problem there as well, and would welcome some sort of solution. So I think there is room for us to offer a way out of their dilemma. Putting forward nominations may not be the only way of doing this. > > Ian Peter > > > > > > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 5:23 AM > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference > > I attended the NETmundial phone conference this morning, interested to find out what had changed since the previous launch in August, which had drawn criticism not only from civil society but more broadly. > > The NETmundial Initiative is presented as not being a centralised organisation but rather a platform to support distributed governance of the Internet. It brings together "Enablers" (currently CGI.br, ICANN and WEF) and proposed "Solutions". The solutions can be contributed by anyone in crowdsourcing fashion, and can invite partnerships or calls for assistance. The focus of the Initiative is on mapping what already exists, and on developing solutions where there are gaps. > > There have been some changes since what was presented in August, mainly to de-emphasise the role of the WEF, which now notionally has its own separate but parallel Internet initiative. However WEF will continue to enjoy a permanent seat on the NETmundial Initiative's Coordination Council, and contrary to previous indications, the name of the initiative will not be changed to remove the reference to "NETmundial". This is because the NETmundial Principles are meant to be the foundation for the Initiative's work (I questioned whether this meant that those Principles are set in stone, and received an equivocal response that the Initiative might work on evolving them if someone proposed this.) > > The Coordination Council will contain 25 members, 5 of which are permanent seats for CGI.br, WEF, ICANN, > the I* group, and the IGF MAG. Note: no permanent seat for civil society, except through CGI.br and the IGF. The other 20 members will be distributed across four stakeholder groups which are (1) academia, the technical community and foundations, (2) civil society, (3) governments and intergovernmental organisations, and (4) the private sector - and across all geographical regions. > > There was much emphasis on how "bottom up" this initiative is, which drew skeptical responses in the webconference chat room. Although they did invite the stakeholder groups to nominate their own representatives, ultimately ICANN, WEF and CGI.br together reserved the right to decide between them if too many nominations were received. (From civil society's point of view, we would aim, if we are to nominate candidates at all, to do so centrally through our IG Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in order to avoid giving WEF that power.) > > > Nominations are due within a month, so we really need to decide within a week whether we intend to participate at all, and if so, to proceed to a nomination process through the CSCG. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 7 18:56:30 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 05:26:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference In-Reply-To: <545D3C65.4030007@acm.org> References: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> <389457F6D8174B2589C237F3B166ABAB@Toshiba> <545D3C65.4030007@acm.org> Message-ID: <67917B1B-B62B-4E9A-956D-BAB9CC1A1F47@hserus.net> I fully agree. Silly comments sneering about people who volunteer being "self selected" have been aired here in the past few days, and that's just not on. --srs (iPad) > On 08-Nov-2014, at 03:10, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > I would recommend a dual strategy. > > Let people nominate and self-nominate on the NMI site, > and have CSCG make a recommendation from among those (self)nominations. > > This way we don't ignore their process, > but we do the choosing for them. > > As for whether we participate or not, people from CS will participate it there is an opportunity to do so, whether and particular decides it is a good idea or not. And CS, which is always arguing for our voice, should participate anytime we are given a chance to do so. So yeah, if offered seats CS, will occupy them - only the selection process remains a question. > > And if there are choices to be made about who sits in the seats, the CSCG should weigh in on the choice. > > > Also while I prefer to see nominations over self-nominations, i think both are appropriate both from experienced volunteers and new voices. I think we are always self selected in some way when we put ourselves forward to be chosen or rejected (and sometimes slammed) by those who make it their business to judge. > > avri > > >> On 06-Nov-14 14:21, Ian Peter wrote: >> Yes – I agree with Jeremy that we really do need to decide within a week if we are to participate, and if so how. I notice a few people putting names forward on our lists already; if for the next few days we can have discussions here and elsewhere as to whether or not to participate, that would help to refine an approach and a possible call for nominations in a few days. >> >> The NetMundial.org site is now revised to reflect this new initiative and the call for nominations is outlined at https://www.netmundial.org/coordination-council-nominations. Names of all people nominated are automatically made public immediately - I think a good feature. >> >> CSCG is going to have to make a decision on whether to be involved or not, and if so how. To assist this, I think there are many people reading this list who listened in on the call – and in some cases were not able to ask questions – so it would be good to have feedback on their impressions from these people and others. >> >> For me as an individual – I think the concept of a forum to deal with orphan issues is good and needed. However, irrespective of how good the intentions of WEF ICANN and CGI.br are or are not, there is a substantial structural issue if WEF decides who the representatives of civil society are. I think they realise they have a problem there as well, and would welcome some sort of solution. So I think there is room for us to offer a way out of their dilemma. Putting forward nominations may not be the only way of doing this. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Jeremy Malcolm >> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 5:23 AM >> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference >> >> I attended the NETmundial phone conference this morning, interested to find out what had changed since the previous launch in August, which had drawn criticism not only from civil society but more broadly. >> >> The NETmundial Initiative is presented as not being a centralised organisation but rather a platform to support distributed governance of the Internet. It brings together "Enablers" (currently CGI.br, ICANN and WEF) and proposed "Solutions". The solutions can be contributed by anyone in crowdsourcing fashion, and can invite partnerships or calls for assistance. The focus of the Initiative is on mapping what already exists, and on developing solutions where there are gaps. >> >> There have been some changes since what was presented in August, mainly to de-emphasise the role of the WEF, which now notionally has its own separate but parallel Internet initiative. However WEF will continue to enjoy a permanent seat on the NETmundial Initiative's Coordination Council, and contrary to previous indications, the name of the initiative will not be changed to remove the reference to "NETmundial". This is because the NETmundial Principles are meant to be the foundation for the Initiative's work (I questioned whether this meant that those Principles are set in stone, and received an equivocal response that the Initiative might work on evolving them if someone proposed this.) >> >> The Coordination Council will contain 25 members, 5 of which are permanent seats for CGI.br, WEF, ICANN, >> the I* group, and the IGF MAG. Note: no permanent seat for civil society, except through CGI.br and the IGF. The other 20 members will be distributed across four stakeholder groups which are (1) academia, the technical community and foundations, (2) civil society, (3) governments and intergovernmental organisations, and (4) the private sector - and across all geographical regions. >> >> There was much emphasis on how "bottom up" this initiative is, which drew skeptical responses in the webconference chat room. Although they did invite the stakeholder groups to nominate their own representatives, ultimately ICANN, WEF and CGI.br together reserved the right to decide between them if too many nominations were received. (From civil society's point of view, we would aim, if we are to nominate candidates at all, to do so centrally through our IG Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in order to avoid giving WEF that power.) >> >> >> Nominations are due within a month, so we really need to decide within a week whether we intend to participate at all, and if so, to proceed to a nomination process through the CSCG. >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Nov 7 20:53:37 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 21:53:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference In-Reply-To: References: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> <0DC996BB-50B0-4FAA-8535-A2AF2B806633@gmail.com> Message-ID: For what it's worth -` There was a short meeting in Istanbul between a team from WEF and representatives of the CSCG. I was there to represent Mawaki, the IGC member of the CSCG. My impression from that meeting was that what was being proposed was essentially a clearinghouse for projects that would bring project proposers and potential funders together with the intention of " develop[ing] solutions where none exist". The WEF apparently already does something similar in a more general development context. This would be for specifically Internet/IG related projects. I thought I heard something similar yesterday, although everything was rather fuzzy. This may be completely erroneous but that's what it sounded like under the decoration. It may become clearer when the transcript is made available. Deirdre On 7 November 2014 08:53, Anne Jellema wrote: > Thanks Jeremy, Bill and others for the info. > Before we dive into our favourite pastime of arguing about who represents > whom and how they should be chosen, I'm interested to know what others > think about the value add of this forum in the first place. > Isn't "a platform to support distributed governance of the Internet and > .... develop solutions where none exist" a pretty good description of what > the IGF is or should be? Is there really a need for WEF and ICANN to divert > time and resources into creating another one? > best > Anne > > On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 11:17 AM, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi >> >> Thanks Jeremy for the summary. Just to flag one immediate issue about >> the CC: the four categories of participants don’t correspond to the >> nongovernmental ones used for Sao Paulo and 1NET, and "academia, the >> technical community and foundations” are tossed together into one basket. >> I’m not sure what process can be devised here to get those three distinct >> groupings to agree on 5 names, inter alia since foundations have not been >> organized and engaged in IG processes as a stakeholder group. Unless a >> coordinated solution can be found (e.g. 2/2/1), one can easily imagine them >> getting more than 5 nominations, in which case CGI.br, ICANN and WEF >> will end up having to pick their best guess of a mix those groups will >> accept. So making this work as a thoroughly bottom-up process could be a >> challenge even if CS and business can work out their respective issues. >> More differentiated baskets would have saved some headaches. >> >> How to constitute the CC is obviously just one of the questions that will >> have to be worked through. How exactly the platform would operate and what >> the CC’s role and responsibilities would be also are very much TBD. One >> could imagine the CC overseeing the design of the platform; serving as as a >> facilitator of connections when someone proposes a project and solicits >> partners/support; facilitating the dissemination of progress reports; etc. >> But should it do more than this? It’s not clear that the CC should be >> deciding which project proposals can be appear on the platform; specifying >> a framework for their formulation and conduct; overseeing their progress, >> and so on. I guess it will be for the CC to figure these things out in >> consultation with the wider communities. >> >> One thing I’d be reluctant to see it get into is elaborating on the NM >> Statement's principles. I believe you raised this possibility at the >> August meeting at WEF as well, and am not clear what you have in mind. A >> priori, I’d think that if the NMI wandered onto this turf, it would raise >> the stakes and become politicized and potentially divisive. Better to >> stick to being an open platform for project facilitation and leave the >> discussion/negotiation of governance frameworks to other more inclusive >> forums/processes, no? >> >> Best >> >> Bill >> >> On Nov 6, 2014, at 7:23 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> I attended the NETmundial phone conference this morning, interested to >> find out what had changed since the previous launch in August, which had >> drawn criticism not only from civil society but more broadly. >> >> The NETmundial Initiative is presented as not being a centralised >> organisation but rather a platform to support distributed governance of the >> Internet. It brings together "Enablers" (currently CGI.br, ICANN and >> WEF) and proposed "Solutions". The solutions can be contributed by anyone >> in crowdsourcing fashion, and can invite partnerships or calls for >> assistance. The focus of the Initiative is on mapping what already exists, >> and on developing solutions where there are gaps. >> >> There have been some changes since what was presented in August, mainly >> to de-emphasise the role of the WEF, which now notionally has its own >> separate but parallel Internet initiative. However WEF will continue to >> enjoy a permanent seat on the NETmundial Initiative's Coordination Council, >> and contrary to previous indications, the name of the initiative will not >> be changed to remove the reference to "NETmundial". This is because the >> NETmundial Principles are meant to be the foundation for the Initiative's >> work (I questioned whether this meant that those Principles are set in >> stone, and received an equivocal response that the Initiative might work on >> evolving them if someone proposed this.) >> >> The Coordination Council will contain 25 members, 5 of which are >> permanent seats for CGI.br , WEF, ICANN, >> the I* group, and the IGF MAG. Note: no permanent seat for civil >> society, except through CGI.br and the IGF. The other 20 members will >> be distributed across four stakeholder groups which are (1) academia, the >> technical community and foundations, (2) civil society, (3) governments and >> intergovernmental organisations, and (4) the private sector - and across >> all geographical regions. >> >> There was much emphasis on how "bottom up" this initiative is, which drew >> skeptical responses in the webconference chat room. Although they did >> invite the stakeholder groups to nominate their own representatives, >> ultimately ICANN, WEF and CGI.br together reserved the right to decide >> between them if too many nominations were received. (From civil society's >> point of view, we would aim, if we are to nominate candidates at all, to do >> so centrally through our IG Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in >> order to avoid giving WEF that power.) >> >> Nominations are due within a month, so we really need to decide within a >> week whether we intend to participate at all, and if so, to proceed to a >> nomination process through the CSCG. >> >> -- >> 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 :: >> >> >> *********************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >> www.williamdrake.org >> *********************************************** >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > Anne Jellema > CEO > +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) > +1 202 684 6885 (US) > Twitter: @afjellema > PGP: A84F061D > *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington > DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | > Twitter: @webfoundation* > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ahmed22digital at gmail.com Fri Nov 7 21:04:35 2014 From: ahmed22digital at gmail.com (ahmed eisa) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 05:04:35 +0300 Subject: [governance] list of 52 icann fellowship winners In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: ahmed eisa Date: Saturday, 8 November 2014 Subject: list of 52 icann fellowship winners To: Arab IGF mailing list Dear friends here is the list of the 52 icann fellowship list https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-11-07-en -- Ahmed Mahmoud Mohamed Eisa +249123031155 Sudani +249912331155 Zain +249999331155 MTN KHARTOUM alamaraat P.O.BOX 15021 post code 12217 http://www.gedaref.com/ Gedaref digital city organization (GDCO) is a nongovernmental and nonprofit organization (Gedaref Sudan), it is part of the Telecentres movement where ICT is used for community development. GDCO is the winner of information for development award (i4d 2007 awards e-India) for the inclusion of the disabled, GDCO is the winner of i4d 2008 awards for the best innovations at the grassroots Telecentres and the winner of i4d 2009 for the initiatives of civil society for development (e-agriculture project and other e-services).. ..it is the winner of eWorld award 2011. it is the winner of best innovative NGO working on ICT for community development in Sudan. The winner of best album in Telecentre 2011 Philippines .. it the founder of the first Telecentre academy in Africa and middle east and the thirteen in world ..The Digital City of Eindhoven (DSE) Netherlands (the founder and well-known partner of GDCO in Netherlands) donated 750 computers and more than ten projects were established using ICT for community development and one of them is e-agriculture. GDCO & SPEG (foundation of eindhoven volunteers for gedaref projects) started new partnership for community development including people with disability (especially deaf), gedaref university, (faculty of medicine) e-agriculture, SeVO and other project -- Ahmed Mahmoud Mohamed Eisa +249123031155 Sudani +249912331155 Zain +249999331155 MTN KHARTOUM alamaraat P.O.BOX 15021 post code 12217 http://www.gedaref.com/ Gedaref digital city organization (GDCO) is a nongovernmental and nonprofit organization (Gedaref Sudan), it is part of the Telecentres movement where ICT is used for community development. GDCO is the winner of information for development award (i4d 2007 awards e-India) for the inclusion of the disabled, GDCO is the winner of i4d 2008 awards for the best innovations at the grassroots Telecentres and the winner of i4d 2009 for the initiatives of civil society for development (e-agriculture project and other e-services).. ..it is the winner of eWorld award 2011. it is the winner of best innovative NGO working on ICT for community development in Sudan. The winner of best album in Telecentre 2011 Philippines .. it the founder of the first Telecentre academy in Africa and middle east and the thirteen in world ..The Digital City of Eindhoven (DSE) Netherlands (the founder and well-known partner of GDCO in Netherlands) donated 750 computers and more than ten projects were established using ICT for community development and one of them is e-agriculture. GDCO & SPEG (foundation of eindhoven volunteers for gedaref projects) started new partnership for community development including people with disability (especially deaf), gedaref university, (faculty of medicine) e-agriculture, SeVO and other project -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ahmed22digital at gmail.com Fri Nov 7 21:17:09 2014 From: ahmed22digital at gmail.com (ahmed eisa) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 05:17:09 +0300 Subject: [governance] the announced list of the 52 icann fellowship Message-ID: Dear friends Here is the announced fellowship list of the icann 52 meeting in Singapore instead of marakesh and I have the honour to be listed ,,,, thanks to ICANN https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-11-07-en -- Ahmed Mahmoud Mohamed Eisa +249123031155 Sudani +249912331155 Zain +249999331155 MTN KHARTOUM alamaraat P.O.BOX 15021 post code 12217 http://www.gedaref.com/ Gedaref digital city organization (GDCO) is a nongovernmental and nonprofit organization (Gedaref Sudan), it is part of the Telecentres movement where ICT is used for community development. GDCO is the winner of information for development award (i4d 2007 awards e-India) for the inclusion of the disabled, GDCO is the winner of i4d 2008 awards for the best innovations at the grassroots Telecentres and the winner of i4d 2009 for the initiatives of civil society for development (e-agriculture project and other e-services).. ..it is the winner of eWorld award 2011. it is the winner of best innovative NGO working on ICT for community development in Sudan. The winner of best album in Telecentre 2011 Philippines .. it the founder of the first Telecentre academy in Africa and middle east and the thirteen in world ..The Digital City of Eindhoven (DSE) Netherlands (the founder and well-known partner of GDCO in Netherlands) donated 750 computers and more than ten projects were established using ICT for community development and one of them is e-agriculture. GDCO & SPEG (foundation of eindhoven volunteers for gedaref projects) started new partnership for community development including people with disability (especially deaf), gedaref university, (faculty of medicine) e-agriculture, SeVO and other project -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 8 08:21:32 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 07:21:32 -0600 Subject: Secure Unowned Hierarchical Anycast Root Name Service - And an Apologia (was Re: [governance] Two IETF Internet-Drafts about human rights and censorship) Message-ID: Wolfgang, All, This article sheds light on the RFC in question: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141107_secure_unowned_hierarchical_anycast_root_name_service_and_apologia/ On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 3:19 PM, McTim wrote: > Wolfgang, > > Sorry I didn't get to say hello to you in L.A.! > > This is what was posted on DNS-OPS list last week: > > "Registration will open shortly for the Workshop on DNS Future Root > Service Architecture. > >> Location: Hong Kong, HK >> Date: December 8-9, 2014 >> Hosted by: ISOC-HK >> Sponsors: ZDNS/BII and CNNIC >> Co-chairs: Warren Kumari and Paul Vixie > > This two day workshop will focus on the DNS root service architecture > issues raised by two current Internet Drafts: > > 1. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-root-loopback-00 > Decreasing Access Time to Root Servers by Running One on Loopback > W. Kumari, Ed.; P. Hoffman > > 2. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-dnsop-scalingroot-00 > How to scale the DNS root system? > Xiaodong Lee; Paul Vixie; Zhiwei Yan > > These two drafts take very different approaches to the problem of > increasing root zone availability to recursive name servers. In this > workshop we will explore the differences and similarities, with an eye > towards revising both drafts and clarifying their roles in the DNS > root service architecture. > > Invitations including travel support will be extended to root name > server operators (bcc'd here), and to the I-D authors. The workshop > will be open to any interested party, and presentations will be > streamed live and stored via Youtube. There will be no cost for > attending the workshop. Pre-registration will be required. > > Information on how to register and on the proposed agenda will be sent > shortly to this same distribution. For travel planning purposes, the > meeting will run all day on December 8, with a social event that > evening, and for half a day on December 9, finishing immediately after > lunchtime." > > > > On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:21 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > wrote: >> Thx. Stephane, this is useful and helpful. >> >> BTW, is there any discussion with rgard to the drafts on the number of root servers for the authoritative root? This was a (non-paper?) by Paul Vixie and two Chinese partners. What I have seen is that this was more or less watered down or rejected. Any news here? >> >> Thanks >> >> Wolfgang >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Stephane Bortzmeyer >> Gesendet: Di 04.11.2014 14:47 >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Betreff: [governance] Two IETF Internet-Drafts about human rights and censorship >> >> Next week is the 91th IETF meeting and, at the security meeting, these >> two new Internet-Drafts will be discussed: >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal >> >> Work has been done on privacy issues that should be considered when >> creating an Internet protocol [see the excellent RFC 6973, or >> working groups like DPRIVE, for DNS privacy. S.B.]. This draft suggests that similar >> considerations may apply for other human rights such as freedom of >> expression or freedom of association. A proposal is made for >> initiating IRTF [Internet Research Task Force] work researching the >> possible connections between >> human rights and Internet standards and protocols. The goal would be >> to create an informational RFC concerning human rights protocol >> considerations. >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hall-censorship-tech >> >> This document describes the technical mechanisms used by censorship >> regimes around the world to block or degrade internet traffic. It >> aims to make designers, implementers, and users of Internet protocols >> aware of the properties being exploited and mechanisms used to censor >> end-user access to information. This document makes no suggestions >> on individual protocol considerations, and is purely informational, >> intended to be a reference. >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 -- 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 Sat Nov 8 17:04:18 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 14:04:18 -0800 Subject: [governance] Flash: World Economic Forum Issues 2015 Global Agenda Message-ID: <023a01cffb9f$f1f6d110$d5e47330$@gmail.com> The World Economic Forum (WEF) as part of its annual "Global Agenda" activities (including concerning Internet Governance), has surveyed/Delphied the global elite on global problems and their possible solutions. The answer appears to be "more power to the global elite" (presumably through the new multistakeholder structures which they are so effusively advocating in this and other contexts). http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GAC14/WEF_GAC14_OutlookGlobalAgenda_Report.pdf (No this is not something from "the Onion" or "Netbiscuit".) 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Nov 9 06:17:57 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2014 12:17:57 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Flash: World Economic Forum Issues 2015 Global Agenda References: <023a01cffb9f$f1f6d110$d5e47330$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164283B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Michael, Thanks for the WEF Report. If we describe ICANN as the "microcosm" and WSIS/IGF/NetMundial as the "macrocosm" than this WEF report covers the "universe". The chapter on the Future of the Internet has some points (but also a number of omissions). I see a statement on p.89 which is interesting and which I can subscribe. The author supports a multistakeholder model with "no single point of failure or domination by a single group of set of interests". And furthermore: "We need a clearer understanding of the limits of goverment and corporate intervention online". Yes, this limits are needed. And civil society can and has to play here an important watchdog role against any type of domination. Wolfgang p. -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von michael gurstein Gesendet: Sa 08.11.2014 23:04 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] Flash: World Economic Forum Issues 2015 Global Agenda The World Economic Forum (WEF) as part of its annual "Global Agenda" activities (including concerning Internet Governance), has surveyed/Delphied the global elite on global problems and their possible solutions. The answer appears to be "more power to the global elite" (presumably through the new multistakeholder structures which they are so effusively advocating in this and other contexts). http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GAC14/WEF_GAC14_OutlookGlobalAgenda_Report.pdf (No this is not something from "the Onion" or "Netbiscuit".) 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 Sun Nov 9 11:02:15 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 10:02:15 -0600 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?The_=E2=80=9CUbernet=E2=80=9D_is_Not_a_Fai?= =?UTF-8?Q?t_Accompli?= Message-ID: http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/public-policy/2014/11/why-ubernet-not-fait-accompli -- 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 remmyn at gmail.com Sun Nov 9 15:02:53 2014 From: remmyn at gmail.com (Remmy Nweke) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 21:02:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] Flash: World Economic Forum Issues 2015 Global Agenda In-Reply-To: <023a01cffb9f$f1f6d110$d5e47330$@gmail.com> References: <023a01cffb9f$f1f6d110$d5e47330$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks Michael for sharing, but I would like some insight on what you mean by "the Onion" or "Netbiscuit" theory. Remmy Nweke On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 11:04 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > The World Economic Forum (WEF) as part of its annual "Global Agenda" > activities (including concerning Internet Governance), has > surveyed/Delphied > the global elite on global problems and their possible solutions. > > The answer appears to be "more power to the global elite" (presumably > through the new multistakeholder structures which they are so effusively > advocating in this and other contexts). > > http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GAC14/WEF_GAC14_OutlookGlobalAgenda_Report.pdf > > (No this is not something from "the Onion" or "Netbiscuit".) > > M > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- ____ REMMY NWEKE, Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd (publishers of) DigitalSENSE Business News; ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet (Multiple-award winning medium) Published by: DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms [Member, NIRA Executive Board] Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria NDS Forum on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2015 < http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng>- June 5 Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2015 - June 6 @Welcome Centre Hotels. Register now. Email: remnekkv at gmail.com _____________________________________________________________________ *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 9 17:14:53 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 14:14:53 -0800 Subject: [governance] Flash: World Economic Forum Issues 2015 Global Agenda In-Reply-To: References: <023a01cffb9f$f1f6d110$d5e47330$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <011401cffc6a$96f07e30$c4d17a90$@gmail.com> Hi Remmy, Both "the Onion" and "NetBiscuit") are spoof satirical news site. M From: Remmy Nweke [mailto:remmyn at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 12:03 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] Flash: World Economic Forum Issues 2015 Global Agenda Thanks Michael for sharing, but I would like some insight on what you mean by "the Onion" or "Netbiscuit" theory. Remmy Nweke On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 11:04 PM, michael gurstein wrote: The World Economic Forum (WEF) as part of its annual "Global Agenda" activities (including concerning Internet Governance), has surveyed/Delphied the global elite on global problems and their possible solutions. The answer appears to be "more power to the global elite" (presumably through the new multistakeholder structures which they are so effusively advocating in this and other contexts). http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GAC14/WEF_GAC14_OutlookGlobalAgenda_Report.pdf (No this is not something from "the Onion" or "Netbiscuit".) M ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ____ REMMY NWEKE, Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd (publishers of) DigitalSENSE Business News; ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet (Multiple-award winning medium) Published by: DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms [Member, NIRA Executive Board] Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria NDS Forum on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2015 - June 5 Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2015 - June 6 @Welcome Centre Hotels. Register now. Email: remnekkv at gmail.com _____________________________________________________________________ *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From remmyn at gmail.com Sun Nov 9 17:25:37 2014 From: remmyn at gmail.com (Remmy Nweke) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 23:25:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] Flash: World Economic Forum Issues 2015 Global Agenda In-Reply-To: <011401cffc6a$96f07e30$c4d17a90$@gmail.com> References: <023a01cffb9f$f1f6d110$d5e47330$@gmail.com> <011401cffc6a$96f07e30$c4d17a90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: ok thanks On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 11:14 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Hi Remmy, > > > > Both "the Onion" and "NetBiscuit") are spoof satirical news site... > > > > M > > > > *From:* Remmy Nweke [mailto:remmyn at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, November 09, 2014 12:03 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Flash: World Economic Forum Issues 2015 > Global Agenda > > > > Thanks Michael for sharing, but I would like some insight on what you mean > by "the Onion" or "Netbiscuit" theory. > > Remmy Nweke > > > > On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 11:04 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > The World Economic Forum (WEF) as part of its annual "Global Agenda" > activities (including concerning Internet Governance), has > surveyed/Delphied > the global elite on global problems and their possible solutions. > > The answer appears to be "more power to the global elite" (presumably > through the new multistakeholder structures which they are so effusively > advocating in this and other contexts). > > http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GAC14/WEF_GAC14_OutlookGlobalAgenda_Report.pdf > > (No this is not something from "the Onion" or "Netbiscuit".) > > M > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > > ____ > > REMMY NWEKE, > Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, > DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd > (publishers of) DigitalSENSE Business News; > ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet > (Multiple-award winning medium) > Published by: DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd > Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza > Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos > M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, > T: @ITRealms > > [Member, NIRA Executive Board] > Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria > > NDS Forum on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2015 < > http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng>- June 5 > Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2015 - June 6 > @Welcome Centre Hotels. Register now. Email: remnekkv at gmail.com > _____________________________________________________________________ > *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments > are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended > only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal > responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the > intended > recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do > not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make > any copies. Violators may face court persecution. > -- ____ REMMY NWEKE, Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd (publishers of) DigitalSENSE Business News; ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet (Multiple-award winning medium) Published by: DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms [Member, NIRA Executive Board] Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria NDS Forum on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2015 < http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng>- June 5 Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2015 - June 6 @Welcome Centre Hotels. Register now. Email: remnekkv at gmail.com _____________________________________________________________________ *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 9 22:00:29 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 14:00:29 +1100 Subject: [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference In-Reply-To: <545D3C65.4030007@acm.org> References: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> <389457F6D8174B2589C237F3B166ABAB@Toshiba> <545D3C65.4030007@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi Avri, thanks for this – it has been forwarded to CSCG members. So that people who are interested in nominating are aware –CSCG is working towards an announcement on lists by next Monday (November 17) as regards a CSCG involvement in an endorsement/nomination process. In the meantime, interested people might like to examine carefully the processes and information required for a nomination and start gathering the material required. The NMI form is at https://www.netmundial.org/make-nomination-coordination-council. One interesting requirement is to state whether the nominee’s Organisation (a specific piece of information sought) will officially endorse the NetMundial Principles. Given that many of our organisations have processes that would take some time to officially endorse NetMundial principles, this might need some fairly prompt attention. If you are thinking of nominating, I believe you should start considering the requirements now. CSCG will say something more about its possible involvement ASAP and by November 17: the overall timeframe is very tight. Ian Peter From: Avri Doria Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2014 8:40 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference Hi, I would recommend a dual strategy. Let people nominate and self-nominate on the NMI site, and have CSCG make a recommendation from among those (self)nominations. This way we don't ignore their process, but we do the choosing for them. As for whether we participate or not, people from CS will participate it there is an opportunity to do so, whether and particular decides it is a good idea or not. And CS, which is always arguing for our voice, should participate anytime we are given a chance to do so. So yeah, if offered seats CS, will occupy them - only the selection process remains a question. And if there are choices to be made about who sits in the seats, the CSCG should weigh in on the choice. Also while I prefer to see nominations over self-nominations, i think both are appropriate both from experienced volunteers and new voices. I think we are always self selected in some way when we put ourselves forward to be chosen or rejected (and sometimes slammed) by those who make it their business to judge. avri On 06-Nov-14 14:21, Ian Peter wrote: Yes – I agree with Jeremy that we really do need to decide within a week if we are to participate, and if so how. I notice a few people putting names forward on our lists already; if for the next few days we can have discussions here and elsewhere as to whether or not to participate, that would help to refine an approach and a possible call for nominations in a few days. The NetMundial.org site is now revised to reflect this new initiative and the call for nominations is outlined at https://www.netmundial.org/coordination-council-nominations. Names of all people nominated are automatically made public immediately - I think a good feature. CSCG is going to have to make a decision on whether to be involved or not, and if so how. To assist this, I think there are many people reading this list who listened in on the call – and in some cases were not able to ask questions – so it would be good to have feedback on their impressions from these people and others. For me as an individual – I think the concept of a forum to deal with orphan issues is good and needed. However, irrespective of how good the intentions of WEF ICANN and CGI.br are or are not, there is a substantial structural issue if WEF decides who the representatives of civil society are. I think they realise they have a problem there as well, and would welcome some sort of solution. So I think there is room for us to offer a way out of their dilemma. Putting forward nominations may not be the only way of doing this. Ian Peter From: Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 5:23 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference I attended the NETmundial phone conference this morning, interested to find out what had changed since the previous launch in August, which had drawn criticism not only from civil society but more broadly. The NETmundial Initiative is presented as not being a centralised organisation but rather a platform to support distributed governance of the Internet. It brings together "Enablers" (currently CGI.br, ICANN and WEF) and proposed "Solutions". The solutions can be contributed by anyone in crowdsourcing fashion, and can invite partnerships or calls for assistance. The focus of the Initiative is on mapping what already exists, and on developing solutions where there are gaps. There have been some changes since what was presented in August, mainly to de-emphasise the role of the WEF, which now notionally has its own separate but parallel Internet initiative. However WEF will continue to enjoy a permanent seat on the NETmundial Initiative's Coordination Council, and contrary to previous indications, the name of the initiative will not be changed to remove the reference to "NETmundial". This is because the NETmundial Principles are meant to be the foundation for the Initiative's work (I questioned whether this meant that those Principles are set in stone, and received an equivocal response that the Initiative might work on evolving them if someone proposed this.) The Coordination Council will contain 25 members, 5 of which are permanent seats for CGI.br, WEF, ICANN, the I* group, and the IGF MAG. Note: no permanent seat for civil society, except through CGI.br and the IGF. The other 20 members will be distributed across four stakeholder groups which are (1) academia, the technical community and foundations, (2) civil society, (3) governments and intergovernmental organisations, and (4) the private sector - and across all geographical regions. There was much emphasis on how "bottom up" this initiative is, which drew skeptical responses in the webconference chat room. Although they did invite the stakeholder groups to nominate their own representatives, ultimately ICANN, WEF and CGI.br together reserved the right to decide between them if too many nominations were received. (From civil society's point of view, we would aim, if we are to nominate candidates at all, to do so centrally through our IG Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in order to avoid giving WEF that power.) Nominations are due within a month, so we really need to decide within a week whether we intend to participate at all, and if so, to proceed to a nomination process through the CSCG. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Nov 10 04:21:21 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 10:21:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] Privacy in UN References: <023a01cffb9f$f1f6d110$d5e47330$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642841@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/11/06/spying-un-idINKBN0IQ29C20141106 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Mon Nov 10 05:42:46 2014 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 11:42:46 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Privacy in UN Message-ID: <1935074913.6963.1415616166271.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k12> Thanks Wolfgang   for this info which was also expected by a large part of European citizens ! As far as I'm concerned, I'd add some remarks. - The wording of the Draft Text would be clearer if it was completed by mentioning the the supposed authors of mass surveillance, namely a single state or a group of states, and/or corporation(s). The US NSA worldwide scandal involved both, countries and corporations. - Significantly and unfortunately, the Draft doesn't ask the WSIS organisers (ITU, Unesco, CSTD) to consider this question in its process and activities. A revealing omission ! That allows the ITU and its consorts to continue to put us to sleep with "success stories" and big rhetorics in "high level debates". Please, take notice that up to now, no one "stakeholder" has put this paramount isue on the WSIS agenda. Does CS will be waiting until one of the "Big fives" will do that ? :-)) - Quoting the last sentence of the Reuter's document  " we don't think that's (question : the Draft Text ?) justified" seems to bury the whole affaire before it is discussed in the UNGA ! A lot of lessons to be learnt from by NGOs, particularly those participating in the WSIS process ... as far as privacy and freedom of expression, but above all ETHICS in Information societies are in their agenda !    Best Jean-Louis Fulsack           > Message du 10/11/14 10:22 > De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Remmy Nweke" , governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "michael gurstein" > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] Privacy in UN > > FYI > > http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/11/06/spying-un-idINKBN0IQ29C20141106 > > Wolfgang > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Nov 10 13:01:09 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 10:01:09 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [nncoalition] Obama calls for real net neutrality In-Reply-To: <051101cffd0f$478ca490$d6a5edb0$@gmail.com> References: <5460F834.1000405@edri.org> <051101cffd0f$478ca490$d6a5edb0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <051901cffd10$4ef72ec0$ece58c40$@gmail.com> I think what Obama`s decision in this instance means is that he is deciding for citizens (and democratic governance) and against corporates (something he has only done sporadically up to this point… There will be enormous discussions on the in`s and out`s of the decision and its implementation but establishing the necessity for involvement of formally constituted governance processes in Internet management in support of the public good is a very important precedent (which of course, is in contradiction to so many of the US`s actions and positions on the global Internet Governance stage. M From: nncoalition-bounces at mailman.edri.org [mailto:nncoalition-bounces at mailman.edri.org] On Behalf Of Kirsten Fiedler Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 9:39 AM To: nncoalition at mailman.edri.org Subject: [nncoalition] Obama calls for real net neutrality ...including re-classification under Title II and: * No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business. * No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences. * Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet. * No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect. Great news! https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20141110/06490829092/surprise-president-obama-calls-real-net-neutrality.shtml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 10 17:58:28 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 04:28:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [nncoalition] Obama calls for real net neutrality In-Reply-To: <051901cffd10$4ef72ec0$ece58c40$@gmail.com> References: <5460F834.1000405@edri.org> <051101cffd0f$478ca490$d6a5edb0$@gmail.com> <051901cffd10$4ef72ec0$ece58c40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1CA02A16-FB11-4A18-837F-A2204924B3D5@hserus.net> The title 2 debate has been tainted by some extremely ill informed activism, and a lot of it has been in a style rather familiar to some in this caucus (painting isp carriers as blackmailers, eavesdroppers etc). Yes, substantial reform is needed but title 2 is an extremely onerous regulation. Also - kiss goodbye to the filtering of quite a lot of spam that isn't outright 419 advanced fee scams, phishing etc. the sort of stuff you see only in your mailbox and on late night cable TV will potentially have a free run. I foresee fun times ahead. The sort that happens when some people get exactly what they wished for. --srs (iPad) > On 10-Nov-2014, at 23:31, michael gurstein wrote: > > I think what Obama`s decision in this instance means is that he is deciding for citizens (and democratic governance) and against corporates (something he has only done sporadically up to this point… > > There will be enormous discussions on the in`s and out`s of the decision and its implementation but establishing the necessity for involvement of formally constituted governance processes in Internet management in support of the public good is a very important precedent (which of course, is in contradiction to so many of the US`s actions and positions on the global Internet Governance stage. > > M > > From: nncoalition-bounces at mailman.edri.org [mailto:nncoalition-bounces at mailman.edri.org] On Behalf Of Kirsten Fiedler > Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 9:39 AM > To: nncoalition at mailman.edri.org > Subject: [nncoalition] Obama calls for real net neutrality > > ...including re-classification under Title II and: > No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business. > No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences. > Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet. > No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect. > Great news! > https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20141110/06490829092/surprise-president-obama-calls-real-net-neutrality.shtml > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Nov 10 21:15:51 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 07:45:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Re Ted Cruz just called net neutrality "Obamacare for the internet" and that's bad news for everyone In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1499ca2ac38.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Prof Faulhaber has it exactly right. --- Forwarded message --- From: "Dave Farber via ip" Date: November 11, 2014 6:18:21 AM Subject: [IP] Re Ted Cruz just called net neutrality "Obamacare for the internet" and that's bad news for everyone To: "ip" I agree. djf ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Faulhaber, Gerald" Date: Nov 10, 2014 1:51 PM Subject: RE: [Dewayne-Net] Ted Cruz just called net neutrality "Obamacare for the internet" and that's bad news for everyone To: "Dave Farber" Cc: Being on the same side of an argument as Ted Cruz is quite disturbing, I admit;-) But I find the Obama NN announcement to be very wrong, on several levels: i) he shouldn't be telling an independent agency what to do; ii) he is specifically stating his preference for Title II rather than Section 706 for no apparent reason; (iii) he seems to have no understanding of the "dead hand of regulation" and how it can stultify the Internet, and iv) he is giving succor to nations like China, Russia, etc. that also want to regulate the Internet and will see any US action in that direction as a good excuse to do so. Here's some statements from AEI economists on the Obama NN announcement. Very critical of the announcement (no surprise there), but rather more measured than Cruz: The Obama administration just announced its support for Title II reclassification of the Internet. While President Obama acknowledged the independence of the FCC in his controversial statement, his call for reclassification is a noteworthy intervention in ongoing rulemaking procedures. AEI’s scholars share their thoughts on the announcement’s implications for ISPs and consumers alike. *Jeffrey Eisenach:* The Federal Communications Commission was created to be an independent regulatory agency, above and beyond the reach of crass politics. The White House’s decision to intervene in an ongoing rulemaking makes a mockery of any sense of independence or impartiality. A legitimate case can be made that a decision as large, and as lacking in statutory basis, as the FCC’s intervention in the net neutrality matter is correctly a matter for politicians, not bureaucrats. To the extent that is the case, however, there is only one legitimate route, and it starts in the Congress, not the White House. If the FCC bows to pressure from the White House on this issue, the agency’s reputation will suffer a terrible stain. *Bret Swanson:* The Internet in the US has thrived almost beyond imagination under a multi-decade, bipartisan stance of policy restraint. Imposing Title II telephone regulations on the wildly successful US Internet would be a historic economic blunder. *Roslyn Layton:* During the President’s official visit to China today, the White House issued a statement from the President saying that he supports government regulation of the Internet by reclassifying broadband under Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1934. This announcement follows on the heels of the ITU Plenipotentiary meeting, where Chinese member Houlin Zhao has been elected the new Secretary. This statement is not only a terrible message for the US, but for the rest of world. Indeed, foreign authoritarian governments have been looking for justification to monitor networks and users under the guise of net neutrality and the “Open Internet.” Obama’s announcement could not be a better present to the leaders of China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Read my articles about this here and here . *Daniel Lyons:* Title II reclassification would impose upon a vibrant Internet a legal regime designed in the 1930s to control the old AT&T monopoly. Indeed, the proposed ban on paid prioritization is more stringent than the obligations we once shackled on Ma Bell. The White House’s proposal to homogenize broadband Internet access is inconsistent with an increasingly diverse marketplace and would deprive Americans of countless innovative business models currently proliferating worldwide. Individualized bargaining allows for experimentation and testing of potentially more efficient business models that could get consumers the content and services that they need better than existing practices. Broadband policies turn upon a host of highly technical issues, in both fixed and wireless markets, that cannot be reduced to political sound bytes. This is why these policy decisions are firmly vested in the hands of an independent agency with the technical expertise to understand the nuances of these policies, insulated from the very political pressure that the White House is attempting to bring to bear on the Commission. There are numerous potentially pro-consumer alternatives to one-size-fits-all broadband access. Whatever rules the Commission ultimately adopts should allow for innovation that provides consumers with the services they desire online, wherever that innovation occurs in the Internet ecosystem. *Richard Bennett:* Overall broadband quality in the United States is better than broadband quality in all comparable nations thanks to the facilities-based competition model that we’ve followed since the Clinton Administration. President Obama’s desire to abandon our home-grown policy framework in favor of the approach used in the worst-performing nations such as Italy and France amounts to snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory and compromises the FCC’s legal independence. It’s unfortunate that the White House refuses to put the well-being of the American people above the wishes of misguided and poorly informed activists. *Mark Jamison:* The Administration’s announcing how it wants the Federal Communications Commission to decide on Title II regulation of the Internet does not bode well for broadband in the US. The FCC is an independent agency for a reason, namely to keep politics at arm’s length from critical infrastructure investment. Studies over the past 20 years have confirmed what Congress knew 80 years ago when it developed the agency: Politicians like to expropriate the value of infrastructure for their own political ends, and this hurts customers by scaring off investment. An independent agency is intended to stand between politics and investment by regulating under the law through a fact-oriented, transparent process. Whether the Internet has utility and common carriage features that merit Title II treatment is an issue for Congress or for the FCC, deciding under its statutory authority and subject to judicial review." Professor Emeritus Gerald Faulhaber Business Economics and Public Policy Dept. Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania *Professor Emeritus, Law School* *University of Pennsylvania* *From:* farber at gmail.com [mailto:farber at gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Dave Farber *Sent:* Monday, November 10, 2014 1:59 PM *To:* Faulhaber, Gerald *Subject:* Fwd: [Dewayne-Net] Ted Cruz just called net neutrality "Obamacare for the internet" and that's bad news for everyone ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Dewayne Hendricks" Date: Nov 10, 2014 9:36 AM Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Ted Cruz just called net neutrality "Obamacare for the internet" and that's bad news for everyone To: "Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net" Cc: Ted Cruz just called net neutrality "Obamacare for the internet" and that's bad news for everyone Obamacare is bad, so this must be bad, right? By T.C. Sottek Nov 10 2014 < http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/10/7186433/what-senator-ted-cruz-just-said-should-scare-anyone-who-wants > Republicans just dominated Democrats in the midterm elections, and by all popular accounts Obama may become one of the lamest lame ducks in history — the GOP simply hates the guy and it seems unlikely he's going to get anything meaningful done before he leaves office. So we're now entering the presidential "say whatever you want" phase, marked today by the president's strong new stance on rigorous net neutrality regulation. Republican leadership was quick to respond: This is an insanely cynical tactic that should worry all citizens regardless of political stripe, and it's coming from the guys at the top; Ted Cruz (R-TX) is a powerful member of the GOP in the Senate and a potential presidential candidate for 2016. Republicans just took over Congress and hold the keys to policymaking for at least the next two years. If the best they can continue to come up with is repeating "Obama is bad!" the internet is in serious trouble. Net neutrality is obviously nothing like Obamacare, but Cruz and his colleagues have already demonstrated they either don't understand what internet freedom means or they're willing to spread mendacious propaganda about it to help their friends at Verizon, Comcast, and other monopolistic ISPs. Washington is mired in partisanship. Since 2008, the electorate has been subjected to an endless rhetorical tug-of-war between the GOP and Obama, who has become a remarkable manifestation of Republican fears projected on the national stage. Unfortunately, that means even rational policies that ought to be uncontroversial can become tainted by mere association with the president. If Cruz's comments today are a sneak peak at Republican opposition to net neutrality for the next two years, we'll be in for a rough ride. [snip] Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: ------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Nov 10 21:50:49 2014 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 02:50:49 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [nncoalition] Obama calls for real net neutrality In-Reply-To: <1CA02A16-FB11-4A18-837F-A2204924B3D5@hserus.net> References: <5460F834.1000405@edri.org> <051101cffd0f$478ca490$d6a5edb0$@gmail.com> <051901cffd10$4ef72ec0$ece58c40$@gmail.com> <1CA02A16-FB11-4A18-837F-A2204924B3D5@hserus.net> Message-ID: <774b750908584453abfd86851ccf47cc@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> On 10-Nov-2014, at 23:31, michael gurstein > wrote: I think what Obama`s decision in this instance means is that he is deciding for citizens (and democratic governance) and against corporates (something he has only done sporadically up to this point… Gosh. What a lucky man Mr. Gurstein is. The world is such a simple place. There are citizens and there are corporates. Citizens are good, and corporates are bad. It is so easy to decide what is right. Let’s overlook the fact that Netflix, Google, and dozens of other over the top services are corporations and advocates of net neutrality. That would complicate things. Milton L Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 10 21:52:20 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 08:22:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [nncoalition] Obama calls for real net neutrality In-Reply-To: <774b750908584453abfd86851ccf47cc@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <5460F834.1000405@edri.org> <051101cffd0f$478ca490$d6a5edb0$@gmail.com> <051901cffd10$4ef72ec0$ece58c40$@gmail.com> <1CA02A16-FB11-4A18-837F-A2204924B3D5@hserus.net> <774b750908584453abfd86851ccf47cc@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <1499cc40f18.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> If this was fb I would click like and share. Anyway I will restrict myself to just saying +1 On November 11, 2014 8:21:12 AM Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > On 10-Nov-2014, at 23:31, michael gurstein > > wrote: > I think what Obama`s decision in this instance means is that he is deciding > for citizens (and democratic governance) and against corporates (something > he has only done sporadically up to this point… > > > Gosh. What a lucky man Mr. Gurstein is. The world is such a simple place. > There are citizens and there are corporates. Citizens are good, and > corporates are bad. It is so easy to decide what is right. > Let’s overlook the fact that Netflix, Google, and dozens of other over the > top services are corporations and advocates of net neutrality. That would > complicate things. > > > Milton L Mueller > Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ > Internet Governance Project > http://internetgovernance.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 12 00:07:14 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:37:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] ITU work on counterfeit producs Message-ID: <5462EB02.1000601@itforchange.net> Those who were following the ITU PP meeting would have noticed the resolution about counterfeit products. Most of us on the ground trained our guns on the possible inclusion of the term 'unauthorised' which posed the danger to extreme traceability of all communication. This term ' unauthorised' was removed. Please see below an article by Gopa Kumar, of Third World Network, a member of the Just Net Coalition, on how the 'counterfeit' part is problematic enough. There is an ITU meeting on counterfeit products in Geneva on 17th and 18th Nov, and it could be useful for some civil society groups to come up with a statement underlining the concerns raised in the below article. parminder ----- *Title :* TWN IP Info: Conference on ICT intellectual property enforcement raises concerns *Date :* 11 November 2014 *Contents:* TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (Nov14/05) 12 November 2014 Third World Network _________________________________________________________________________________________ *Conference on ICT intellectual property enforcement raises concerns* Geneva, 12 November (K M Gopakumar) – An upcoming conference on intellectual property (IP) enforcement organised by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) raises concerns on the impact of IP protection and enforcement on development. The ITU conference that will focus on information and communications technology devices (ICT) is titled “Combating Counterfeit and Substandard ICT devices” and will be held on 17-18 November 2014 in Geneva, Switzerland. (For details see: http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/WSHP_counterfeit.aspx) The conference has the following three objectives: (1) Discuss the global scope and impact of counterfeiting and substandard ICT products on various stakeholders; (2) Highlight the common concerns, challenges, initiatives, practices and opportunities of the various stakeholders in their fight against counterfeiting and substandard ICT products; (3) Examine the possible role of ICT standards development organizations (SDOs) and in particular the ITU, as part of the global strategy and solution to curtail counterfeiting and substandard ICT products as well as to assist members in addressing their concerns regarding counterfeit devices. The conference will have the following four sessions (http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/Programme.aspx): * Policy debate: Governments’ Perspectives on Combating Counterfeit and Substandard ICT Products; * Intergovernmental Initiatives Against Counterfeit and Substandard ICT; * Technology Debate, ICT Industry Perspectives and Anti-Counterfeit/Substandard Technologies and Systems (parts 1 & 2); * Development Opportunities and International Standards as Part of the Global Strategy Against Counterfeit and Substandard ICT Products. The list of speakers includes national regulators, ICT industry associations (e.g. Mobile Manufacturers Forum, GSM Association, International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations), representatives of international organisations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), World Customs Organization (WCO), World Trade Organization (WTO), Organization for Economic and Development Cooperation (OECD) and the IP Directorate of the European Union, and ICT transnational corporations (e.g. Cisco, Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard). The curious case of participation is the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA), the only participant that is not directly dealing with any ICT devices. However, IFPMMA has long-standing experience in advocating for IP tough enforcement by cleverly conflating IP enforcement with the quality of medicines. (Such conflation is designed to undermine generic medicines competition with expensive patented or originator company's medicines, by confusing the public and regulators into thinking that “counterfeit” medicines that are about copying of trademark, medicines that have questionable quality, and generic medicines are the same.) Interestingly the ICT industry is also pursuing the same strategy to push for IP enforcement by citing the sceptre of safety and security. The submission of the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF) to the conference states that the counterfeit problem touches many aspects including health and safety, environment, security quality of services, loss of tax revenue and unfair competition. However, the IP angle is clearly articulated by some of the participants. For instance, MMF in its submission states: “… both counterfeit and substandard mobile phones avoid the payment of royalties to the rightful intellectual right holders”. It further states that counterfeit mobile phones explicitly infringe the trademark or design of an original or authentic product: “A counterfeit mobile phone copies the trademark (brand) of an original well recognised brand, copies the form factor of the original product, and/or copies the packaging of the original product”. The MMF submission proposes increased enforcement, including legal backing to block phones that do not possess a valid International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) number, which is used by GSM operators to track a phone. IMEI is used mainly to block a stolen phone. MMF proposes the same system to enforce IP. Often, through parallel importation, mobile handsets are sold in informal markets with altered IMEI. MMF wants legal amendment of national laws to prohibit the alteration or changing of IMEI numbers, and to make it a criminal offence to distribute mobile phones with altered IMEI numbers. (Parallel importation is the legal import by a third party of an IP protected product when the IP holder has marketed that product outside the importing country. In such a situation the IP holder’s consent is not needed and no royalty payments are due to the IP holder.) The MMF submission also states: “Many counterfeit substandard mobile phones are out of reach of the customs authorities because they happened to be in transit through a particular country. This creates a huge loophole for criminal organisations to distribute throughout the world as customs officials are powerless to seize obvious counterfeit products that are being shipped to a third country”. Therefore MMF signals that it wants customs authorities to have the power to seize goods in transit, a measure that goes far beyond the requirement under the Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. *ITU joins the IP enforcement bandwagon* ITU is the latest entrant in the IP enforcement game initiated by developed countries and transnational corporation since around 2005. The IP enforcement initiatives have found a place in the following multilateral organisations: WHO, WIPO, WTO, WCO, International Postal Union, INTERPOL, UN Office on Drugs and Crime. In most of these organisations IP enforcement initiatives were pushed in the form of a public private partnership (PPP) to achieve the goal of enforcing a private privilege (which a reward for inventiveness and innovation is and not a “right”) using public money. Developing countries have opposed and pushed back such initiatives in the several multilateral organisations including the WHO, WCO, UNODC and IPU. The IP enforcement agenda within ITU has serious and far-reaching implications on developing countries’ efforts to achieve local manufacturing capabilities and it may affect the interests of small and medium sized enterprises. Since the scope of the ICT devices is so broad any IP enforcement initiative can affect not only mobile handsets but also many areas of radio, telecommunications and computer equipment. Resolution 79 adopted at the ITU’s sixth World Telecommunication Development Conference (WTDC-14) from 30 March to 14 April 2014 in Dubai, United Arab Emirates defines counterfeit very broadly to read: “Counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices include counterfeit and/or copied devices and equipment as well as accessories and components”. The general nature of recent IP enforcement initiatives is to push for “TRIPS Plus” standards and to minimise the flexibilities available in the TRIPS Agreement with regard to the protection and enforcement of IP. These flexibilities are aimed at maintaining the space for developing countries to innovate and develop themselves. The suggestion to clamp down the “grey market” and to use service providers to deny services for devices that are in the grey market would compromise the parallel importation tool available under the IP laws of many countries. One of the dominant strategies of transnational corporate interests is to incorporate IP enforcement strategies as part of standards setting and to ensure that products which do not comply with a country's applicable national conformity processes and regulatory requirements or other applicable legal requirements, should be considered unauthorized for sale and/or activation on telecommunication networks of that country. Thus the upcoming November Conference is an event that offers a glimmer into the real action that is in ITU’s standard setting bodies. The IP enforcement agenda in ITU is pushed through its various standard setting bodies known as “study groups”. This would ensure the global compliance with IP enforcement norms that industry wants and that developed county governments project. Study group 11, which sets the standards on protocols and test specifications, has already undertaken the work program to develop a technical report on counterfeited and substandard ICT equipment. In addition, ITU Resolution 79 instructed study group 2 (that deals with operational aspects of service provision and telecommunications management), in collaboration with other relevant ITU study groups, to: (1) Prepare and document examples of best practices on limiting counterfeit and copied devices, for distribution to ITU Member States and Sector Members; (2) Prepare guidelines, methodologies and publications to assist Member States in identifying counterfeit devices and methods of increasing public awareness to restrict trade in these devices, as well as the best ways of limiting them; (3) Study the impact of counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices being transported to developing countries; (4) Continue studying safe ways of disposing of the harmful e-waste from the counterfeit devices currently in circulation in the world. ITU’s 14^th Plenipotentiary Conference (PPC) on 20 October to 7 November 2014 in Busan, Republic of Korea adopted a resolution on “Combating counterfeit telecommunication/information and communication technology devices”. This is the first resolution exclusively focussing on counterfeit. However, the capture of ITU for the IP enforcement agenda started in 2010. The last PPC in 2010 held in Guadalajara, Mexico adopted Resolution 177 on “Conformance and interoperability”. This resolution invited the “Director of the Telecommunication Development Bureau, in close collaboration with the Director of the Telecommunication Standardization Bureau and the Director of the Radio communication Bureau to assist Member States in addressing their concerns with respect to counterfeit equipment”. Further the resolution invited Member States and Sector Members “to bear in mind the legal and regulatory frameworks of other countries concerning equipment that negatively affects the quality of their telecommunication infrastructure, in particular recognizing the concerns of developing countries with respect to counterfeit equipment”. (PPC takes place once in four years and is the top policy making body of ITU. It specifically makes the decisions in the following areas: sets the Union's general policies; adopts four-year strategic and financial plans; and elects the senior management team of the organization, the members of Council, and the members of the Radio Regulations Board; sets the work program for the next four years.) The latest PPC resolution i.e. COM5/4 (Busan 2014) sets out a full-fledged work program on IP enforcement. The Busan Resolution recognises: /a) /the growing problem related to the sale and circulation of counterfeit devices in the market, as well as the adverse consequences thereof for users, governments and the private sector; /b) / that counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices may negatively impact on security and quality of service for users; /c) /that counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices often contain illegal and unacceptable levels of hazardous substances, threatening consumers and the environment; /d) / that some countries have adopted measures to raise awareness of this issue and deployed successful solutions to deter the spread of counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices, and that developing countries may benefit from learning from those experiences; Further, the Busan Resolution states that it considers: /a) /that, in general, telecommunication/ICT devices that do not comply with a country's applicable national conformity processes and regulatory requirements or other applicable legal requirements, should be considered unauthorized for sale and/or activation on telecommunication networks of that country; /b) / that ITU and other relevant stakeholders have key roles to play in fostering coordination between the parties concerned to study the impact of counterfeit devices and the mechanism for limiting their use and to identify ways of dealing with them internationally and regionally; The Resolution further instruct the Directors of the three ITU Bureaux to: (1) Assist Member States in addressing their concerns with respect to counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices through information sharing at regional or global level, including conformity assessment systems; (2) Assist all the membership, considering relevant ITU-T (ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector) recommendations, in taking the necessary actions to prevent or detect the tampering with and/or duplication of unique device identifiers, interacting with other telecommunication standards-development organizations related to these matters. The Busan Resolution also invites Member States to: (1) Take all necessary measures to combat counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices; (2) Cooperate and exchange expertise among themselves in this area; and (3) Encourage participation in industry programmes combating counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices. It also invites all the membership to: (1) Participate actively in ITU studies relating to combating counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices by submitting contributions; (2) Take the necessary actions to prevent or detect the tampering of unique telecommunication/ICT devices identifiers. The earlier Resolution 79 from the March/April 2014 Dubai conference invites Member States and Sector Members “to bear in mind the legal and regulatory frameworks of other countries concerning equipment that negatively affects the quality of their telecommunication infrastructure and services, in particular recognizing the concerns of developing countries with respect to counterfeit equipment.” Further, Resolution 79 invites Member States to: (1) Take all necessary measures to combat counterfeit devices; (2) Cooperate and exchange expertise among themselves in this area; (3) Incorporate policies to combat counterfeit devices in their national telecommunication/ICT strategies. It also invites telecommunication operators “to cooperate with governments, administrations and telecommunication regulators in combating counterfeit devices, restricting trade in these devices and disposing of them safely, encourages Member States, Sector Members and Academia to participate actively in ITU-D (ITU Development Communication Sector) studies relating to combating counterfeit devices by submitting contributions and in other appropriate ways”.+ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 12 00:28:11 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:58:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] ITU work on counterfeit producs In-Reply-To: <5462EB02.1000601@itforchange.net> References: <5462EB02.1000601@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <149a2791a70.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> I will just state that any modern pharma plant uses heavily computerized machinery and robots in several cases where the chemical components may be hazardous to human health in their raw form, or where extreme levels of dust free environment is required for manufacturing. They have, prima facie, a legitimate interest in seeing that no bogus components turn up anywhere in their manufacturing chain. Safety and security in ict is a serious enough topic that bringing in IP enforcement only vitiates an essential debate and initiative. On November 12, 2014 10:38:26 AM parminder wrote: > Those who were following the ITU PP meeting would have noticed the > resolution about counterfeit products. Most of us on the ground trained > our guns on the possible inclusion of the term 'unauthorised' which > posed the danger to extreme traceability of all communication. This term > ' unauthorised' was removed. > > Please see below an article by Gopa Kumar, of Third World Network, a > member of the Just Net Coalition, on how the 'counterfeit' part is > problematic enough. There is an ITU meeting on counterfeit products in > Geneva on 17th and 18th Nov, and it could be useful for some civil > society groups to come up with a statement underlining the concerns > raised in the below article. > > parminder > > ----- > > *Title :* TWN IP Info: Conference on ICT intellectual property > enforcement raises concerns > *Date :* 11 November 2014 > > *Contents:* > > TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (Nov14/05) > 12 November 2014 > Third World Network > > _________________________________________________________________________________________ > > *Conference on ICT intellectual property enforcement raises concerns* > > Geneva, 12 November (K M Gopakumar) – An upcoming conference on > intellectual property (IP) enforcement organised by the International > Telecommunication Union (ITU) raises concerns on the impact of IP > protection and enforcement on development. > > The ITU conference that will focus on information and communications > technology devices (ICT) is titled “Combating Counterfeit and > Substandard ICT devices” and will be held on 17-18 November 2014 in > Geneva, Switzerland. (For details see: > http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/WSHP_counterfeit.aspx) > > The conference has the following three objectives: > > (1) Discuss the global scope and impact of counterfeiting and > substandard ICT products on various stakeholders; > > (2) Highlight the common concerns, challenges, initiatives, > practices and opportunities of the various stakeholders in their fight > against counterfeiting and substandard ICT products; > > (3) Examine the possible role of ICT standards development > organizations (SDOs) and in particular the ITU, as part of the global > strategy and solution to curtail counterfeiting and substandard ICT > products as well as to assist members in addressing their concerns > regarding counterfeit devices. > > The conference will have the following four sessions > (http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/Programme.aspx): > > * Policy debate: Governments’ Perspectives on Combating Counterfeit > and Substandard ICT Products; > * Intergovernmental Initiatives Against Counterfeit and Substandard ICT; > * Technology Debate, ICT Industry Perspectives and > Anti-Counterfeit/Substandard Technologies and Systems (parts 1 & 2); > * Development Opportunities and International Standards as Part of the > Global Strategy Against Counterfeit and Substandard ICT Products. > > The list of speakers includes national regulators, ICT industry > associations (e.g. Mobile Manufacturers Forum, GSM Association, > International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & > Associations), representatives of international organisations such as > the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), World Customs > Organization (WCO), World Trade Organization (WTO), Organization for > Economic and Development Cooperation (OECD) and the IP Directorate of > the European Union, and ICT transnational corporations (e.g. Cisco, > Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard). > > The curious case of participation is the International Federation of > Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA), the only > participant that is not directly dealing with any ICT devices. However, > IFPMMA has long-standing experience in advocating for IP tough > enforcement by cleverly conflating IP enforcement with the quality of > medicines. > > (Such conflation is designed to undermine generic medicines competition > with expensive patented or originator company's medicines, by confusing > the public and regulators into thinking that “counterfeit” medicines > that are about copying of trademark, medicines that have questionable > quality, and generic medicines are the same.) > > Interestingly the ICT industry is also pursuing the same strategy to > push for IP enforcement by citing the sceptre of safety and security. > The submission of the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF) to the conference > states that the counterfeit problem touches many aspects including > health and safety, environment, security quality of services, loss of > tax revenue and unfair competition. > > However, the IP angle is clearly articulated by some of the > participants. For instance, MMF in its submission states: “… both > counterfeit and substandard mobile phones avoid the payment of royalties > to the rightful intellectual right holders”. It further states that > counterfeit mobile phones explicitly infringe the trademark or design of > an original or authentic product: “A counterfeit mobile phone copies the > trademark (brand) of an original well recognised brand, copies the form > factor of the original product, and/or copies the packaging of the > original product”. > > The MMF submission proposes increased enforcement, including legal > backing to block phones that do not possess a valid International Mobile > Equipment Identity (IMEI) number, which is used by GSM operators to > track a phone. IMEI is used mainly to block a stolen phone. MMF > proposes the same system to enforce IP. Often, through parallel > importation, mobile handsets are sold in informal markets with altered > IMEI. MMF wants legal amendment of national laws to prohibit the > alteration or changing of IMEI numbers, and to make it a criminal > offence to distribute mobile phones with altered IMEI numbers. > > (Parallel importation is the legal import by a third party of an IP > protected product when the IP holder has marketed that product outside > the importing country. In such a situation the IP holder’s consent is > not needed and no royalty payments are due to the IP holder.) > > The MMF submission also states: “Many counterfeit substandard mobile > phones are out of reach of the customs authorities because they happened > to be in transit through a particular country. This creates a huge > loophole for criminal organisations to distribute throughout the world > as customs officials are powerless to seize obvious counterfeit products > that are being shipped to a third country”. > > Therefore MMF signals that it wants customs authorities to have the > power to seize goods in transit, a measure that goes far beyond the > requirement under the Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) > Agreement. > > *ITU joins the IP enforcement bandwagon* > > ITU is the latest entrant in the IP enforcement game initiated by > developed countries and transnational corporation since around 2005. The > IP enforcement initiatives have found a place in the following > multilateral organisations: WHO, WIPO, WTO, WCO, International Postal > Union, INTERPOL, UN Office on Drugs and Crime. In most of these > organisations IP enforcement initiatives were pushed in the form of a > public private partnership (PPP) to achieve the goal of enforcing a > private privilege (which a reward for inventiveness and innovation is > and not a “right”) using public money. Developing countries have > opposed and pushed back such initiatives in the several multilateral > organisations including the WHO, WCO, UNODC and IPU. > > The IP enforcement agenda within ITU has serious and far-reaching > implications on developing countries’ efforts to achieve local > manufacturing capabilities and it may affect the interests of small and > medium sized enterprises. Since the scope of the ICT devices is so broad > any IP enforcement initiative can affect not only mobile handsets but > also many areas of radio, telecommunications and computer equipment. > > Resolution 79 adopted at the ITU’s sixth World Telecommunication > Development Conference (WTDC-14) from 30 March to 14 April 2014 in > Dubai, United Arab Emirates defines counterfeit very broadly to read: > “Counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices include counterfeit and/or > copied devices and equipment as well as accessories and components”. > > The general nature of recent IP enforcement initiatives is to push for > “TRIPS Plus” standards and to minimise the flexibilities available in > the TRIPS Agreement with regard to the protection and enforcement of IP. > These flexibilities are aimed at maintaining the space for developing > countries to innovate and develop themselves. The suggestion to clamp > down the “grey market” and to use service providers to deny services for > devices that are in the grey market would compromise the parallel > importation tool available under the IP laws of many countries. > > One of the dominant strategies of transnational corporate interests is > to incorporate IP enforcement strategies as part of standards setting > and to ensure that products which do not comply with a country's > applicable national conformity processes and regulatory requirements or > other applicable legal requirements, should be considered unauthorized > for sale and/or activation on telecommunication networks of that > country. Thus the upcoming November Conference is an event that offers > a glimmer into the real action that is in ITU’s standard setting bodies. > > The IP enforcement agenda in ITU is pushed through its various standard > setting bodies known as “study groups”. This would ensure the global > compliance with IP enforcement norms that industry wants and that > developed county governments project. Study group 11, which sets the > standards on protocols and test specifications, has already undertaken > the work program to develop a technical report on counterfeited and > substandard ICT equipment. > > In addition, ITU Resolution 79 instructed study group 2 (that deals with > operational aspects of service provision and telecommunications > management), in collaboration with other relevant ITU study groups, to: > > (1) Prepare and document examples of best practices on limiting > counterfeit and copied devices, for distribution to ITU Member States > and Sector Members; > > (2) Prepare guidelines, methodologies and publications to assist Member > States in identifying counterfeit devices and methods of increasing > public awareness to restrict trade in these devices, as well as the best > ways of limiting them; > > (3) Study the impact of counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices being > transported to developing countries; > > (4) Continue studying safe ways of disposing of the harmful e-waste from > the counterfeit devices currently in circulation in the world. > > ITU’s 14^th Plenipotentiary Conference (PPC) on 20 October to 7 > November 2014 in Busan, Republic of Korea adopted a resolution on > “Combating counterfeit telecommunication/information and communication > technology devices”. This is the first resolution exclusively focussing > on counterfeit. > > However, the capture of ITU for the IP enforcement agenda started in > 2010. The last PPC in 2010 held in Guadalajara, Mexico adopted > Resolution 177 on “Conformance and interoperability”. This resolution > invited the “Director of the Telecommunication Development Bureau, in > close collaboration with the Director of the Telecommunication > Standardization Bureau and the Director of the Radio communication > Bureau to assist Member States in addressing their concerns with respect > to counterfeit equipment”. > > Further the resolution invited Member States and Sector Members “to bear > in mind the legal and regulatory frameworks of other countries > concerning equipment that negatively affects the quality of their > telecommunication infrastructure, in particular recognizing the concerns > of developing countries with respect to counterfeit equipment”. > > (PPC takes place once in four years and is the top policy making body of > ITU. It specifically makes the decisions in the following areas: sets > the Union's general policies; adopts four-year strategic and financial > plans; and elects the senior management team of the organization, the > members of Council, and the members of the Radio Regulations Board; sets > the work program for the next four years.) > > The latest PPC resolution i.e. COM5/4 (Busan 2014) sets out a > full-fledged work program on IP enforcement. > > The Busan Resolution recognises: > > /a) /the growing problem related to the sale and circulation of > counterfeit devices in the market, as well as the adverse consequences > thereof for users, governments and the private sector; > > /b) / that counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices may negatively > impact on security and quality of service for users; > > /c) /that counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices often contain > illegal and unacceptable levels of hazardous substances, threatening > consumers and the environment; > > /d) / that some countries have adopted measures to raise awareness of > this issue and deployed successful solutions to deter the spread of > counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices, and that developing countries > may benefit from learning from those experiences; > > Further, the Busan Resolution states that it considers: > > /a) /that, in general, telecommunication/ICT devices that do not comply > with a country's applicable national conformity processes and regulatory > requirements or other applicable legal requirements, should be > considered unauthorized for sale and/or activation on telecommunication > networks of that country; > > /b) / that ITU and other relevant stakeholders have key roles to play in > fostering coordination between the parties concerned to study the impact > of counterfeit devices and the mechanism for limiting their use and to > identify ways of dealing with them internationally and regionally; > > The Resolution further instruct the Directors of the three ITU Bureaux to: > > (1) Assist Member States in addressing their concerns with respect to > counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices through information sharing at > regional or global level, including conformity assessment systems; > > (2) Assist all the membership, considering relevant ITU-T (ITU > Telecommunication Standardization Sector) recommendations, in taking the > necessary actions to prevent or detect the tampering with and/or > duplication of unique device identifiers, interacting with other > telecommunication standards-development organizations related to these > matters. > > The Busan Resolution also invites Member States to: > > (1) Take all necessary measures to combat counterfeit > telecommunication/ICT devices; > > (2) Cooperate and exchange expertise among themselves in this area; and > > (3) Encourage participation in industry programmes combating counterfeit > telecommunication/ICT devices. > > It also invites all the membership to: > > (1) Participate actively in ITU studies relating to combating > counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices by submitting contributions; > > (2) Take the necessary actions to prevent or detect the tampering of > unique telecommunication/ICT devices identifiers. > > The earlier Resolution 79 from the March/April 2014 Dubai conference > invites Member States and Sector Members “to bear in mind the legal and > regulatory frameworks of other countries concerning equipment that > negatively affects the quality of their telecommunication infrastructure > and services, in particular recognizing the concerns of developing > countries with respect to counterfeit equipment.” > > Further, Resolution 79 invites Member States to: > > (1) Take all necessary measures to combat counterfeit devices; > > (2) Cooperate and exchange expertise among themselves in this area; > > (3) Incorporate policies to combat counterfeit devices in their > national telecommunication/ICT strategies. > > It also invites telecommunication operators “to cooperate with > governments, administrations and telecommunication regulators in > combating counterfeit devices, restricting trade in these devices and > disposing of them safely, encourages Member States, Sector Members and > Academia to participate actively in ITU-D (ITU Development Communication > Sector) studies relating to combating counterfeit devices by submitting > contributions and in other appropriate ways”.+ > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Nov 12 00:32:55 2014 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 00:32:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] ITU work on counterfeit producs In-Reply-To: <149a2791a70.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <5462EB02.1000601@itforchange.net> <149a2791a70.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Oh, please. Bringing in "IP enforcement" is assuring that's not confused with any other application. Which really needs to be vitiated. On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I will just state that any modern pharma plant uses heavily computerized > machinery and robots in several cases where the chemical components may be > hazardous to human health in their raw form, or where extreme levels of dust > free environment is required for manufacturing. > > They have, prima facie, a legitimate interest in seeing that no bogus > components turn up anywhere in their manufacturing chain. > > Safety and security in ict is a serious enough topic that bringing in IP > enforcement only vitiates an essential debate and initiative. > > On November 12, 2014 10:38:26 AM parminder > wrote: >> >> Those who were following the ITU PP meeting would have noticed the >> resolution about counterfeit products. Most of us on the ground trained our >> guns on the possible inclusion of the term 'unauthorised' which posed the >> danger to extreme traceability of all communication. This term ' >> unauthorised' was removed. >> >> Please see below an article by Gopa Kumar, of Third World Network, a >> member of the Just Net Coalition, on how the 'counterfeit' part is >> problematic enough. There is an ITU meeting on counterfeit products in >> Geneva on 17th and 18th Nov, and it could be useful for some civil society >> groups to come up with a statement underlining the concerns raised in the >> below article. >> >> parminder >> >> ----- >> >> Title : TWN IP Info: Conference on ICT intellectual property enforcement >> raises concerns >> Date : 11 November 2014 >> >> Contents: >> >> TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (Nov14/05) >> 12 November 2014 >> Third World Network >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________________________________ >> >> Conference on ICT intellectual property enforcement raises concerns >> >> Geneva, 12 November (K M Gopakumar) – An upcoming conference on >> intellectual property (IP) enforcement organised by the International >> Telecommunication Union (ITU) raises concerns on the impact of IP protection >> and enforcement on development. >> >> The ITU conference that will focus on information and communications >> technology devices (ICT) is titled “Combating Counterfeit and Substandard >> ICT devices” and will be held on 17-18 November 2014 in Geneva, Switzerland. >> (For details see: >> http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/WSHP_counterfeit.aspx) >> >> The conference has the following three objectives: >> >> (1) Discuss the global scope and impact of counterfeiting and >> substandard ICT products on various stakeholders; >> >> (2) Highlight the common concerns, challenges, initiatives, >> practices and opportunities of the various stakeholders in their fight >> against counterfeiting and substandard ICT products; >> >> (3) Examine the possible role of ICT standards development >> organizations (SDOs) and in particular the ITU, as part of the global >> strategy and solution to curtail counterfeiting and substandard ICT products >> as well as to assist members in addressing their concerns regarding >> counterfeit devices. >> >> The conference will have the following four sessions >> (http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/Programme.aspx): >> >> Policy debate: Governments’ Perspectives on Combating Counterfeit and >> Substandard ICT Products; >> Intergovernmental Initiatives Against Counterfeit and Substandard ICT; >> Technology Debate, ICT Industry Perspectives and >> Anti-Counterfeit/Substandard Technologies and Systems (parts 1 & 2); >> Development Opportunities and International Standards as Part of the >> Global Strategy Against Counterfeit and Substandard ICT Products. >> >> The list of speakers includes national regulators, ICT industry >> associations (e.g. Mobile Manufacturers Forum, GSM Association, >> International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations), >> representatives of international organisations such as the World >> Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), World Customs Organization (WCO), >> World Trade Organization (WTO), Organization for Economic and Development >> Cooperation (OECD) and the IP Directorate of the European Union, and ICT >> transnational corporations (e.g. Cisco, Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard). >> >> The curious case of participation is the International Federation of >> Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA), the only participant >> that is not directly dealing with any ICT devices. However, IFPMMA has >> long-standing experience in advocating for IP tough enforcement by cleverly >> conflating IP enforcement with the quality of medicines. >> >> (Such conflation is designed to undermine generic medicines competition >> with expensive patented or originator company's medicines, by confusing the >> public and regulators into thinking that “counterfeit” medicines that are >> about copying of trademark, medicines that have questionable quality, and >> generic medicines are the same.) >> >> Interestingly the ICT industry is also pursuing the same strategy to push >> for IP enforcement by citing the sceptre of safety and security. The >> submission of the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF) to the conference states >> that the counterfeit problem touches many aspects including health and >> safety, environment, security quality of services, loss of tax revenue and >> unfair competition. >> >> However, the IP angle is clearly articulated by some of the participants. >> For instance, MMF in its submission states: “… both counterfeit and >> substandard mobile phones avoid the payment of royalties to the rightful >> intellectual right holders”. It further states that counterfeit mobile >> phones explicitly infringe the trademark or design of an original or >> authentic product: “A counterfeit mobile phone copies the trademark (brand) >> of an original well recognised brand, copies the form factor of the original >> product, and/or copies the packaging of the original product”. >> >> The MMF submission proposes increased enforcement, including legal backing >> to block phones that do not possess a valid International Mobile Equipment >> Identity (IMEI) number, which is used by GSM operators to track a phone. >> IMEI is used mainly to block a stolen phone. MMF proposes the same system >> to enforce IP. Often, through parallel importation, mobile handsets are sold >> in informal markets with altered IMEI. MMF wants legal amendment of >> national laws to prohibit the alteration or changing of IMEI numbers, and to >> make it a criminal offence to distribute mobile phones with altered IMEI >> numbers. >> >> (Parallel importation is the legal import by a third party of an IP >> protected product when the IP holder has marketed that product outside the >> importing country. In such a situation the IP holder’s consent is not needed >> and no royalty payments are due to the IP holder.) >> >> The MMF submission also states: “Many counterfeit substandard mobile >> phones are out of reach of the customs authorities because they happened to >> be in transit through a particular country. This creates a huge loophole for >> criminal organisations to distribute throughout the world as customs >> officials are powerless to seize obvious counterfeit products that are being >> shipped to a third country”. >> >> Therefore MMF signals that it wants customs authorities to have the power >> to seize goods in transit, a measure that goes far beyond the requirement >> under the Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. >> >> ITU joins the IP enforcement bandwagon >> >> ITU is the latest entrant in the IP enforcement game initiated by >> developed countries and transnational corporation since around 2005. The IP >> enforcement initiatives have found a place in the following multilateral >> organisations: WHO, WIPO, WTO, WCO, International Postal Union, INTERPOL, UN >> Office on Drugs and Crime. In most of these organisations IP enforcement >> initiatives were pushed in the form of a public private partnership (PPP) to >> achieve the goal of enforcing a private privilege (which a reward for >> inventiveness and innovation is and not a “right”) using public money. >> Developing countries have opposed and pushed back such initiatives in the >> several multilateral organisations including the WHO, WCO, UNODC and IPU. >> >> The IP enforcement agenda within ITU has serious and far-reaching >> implications on developing countries’ efforts to achieve local manufacturing >> capabilities and it may affect the interests of small and medium sized >> enterprises. Since the scope of the ICT devices is so broad any IP >> enforcement initiative can affect not only mobile handsets but also many >> areas of radio, telecommunications and computer equipment. >> >> Resolution 79 adopted at the ITU’s sixth World Telecommunication >> Development Conference (WTDC-14) from 30 March to 14 April 2014 in Dubai, >> United Arab Emirates defines counterfeit very broadly to read: “Counterfeit >> telecommunication/ICT devices include counterfeit and/or copied devices and >> equipment as well as accessories and components”. >> >> The general nature of recent IP enforcement initiatives is to push for >> “TRIPS Plus” standards and to minimise the flexibilities available in the >> TRIPS Agreement with regard to the protection and enforcement of IP. These >> flexibilities are aimed at maintaining the space for developing countries to >> innovate and develop themselves. The suggestion to clamp down the “grey >> market” and to use service providers to deny services for devices that are >> in the grey market would compromise the parallel importation tool available >> under the IP laws of many countries. >> >> One of the dominant strategies of transnational corporate interests is to >> incorporate IP enforcement strategies as part of standards setting and to >> ensure that products which do not comply with a country's applicable >> national conformity processes and regulatory requirements or other >> applicable legal requirements, should be considered unauthorized for sale >> and/or activation on telecommunication networks of that country. Thus the >> upcoming November Conference is an event that offers a glimmer into the real >> action that is in ITU’s standard setting bodies. >> >> The IP enforcement agenda in ITU is pushed through its various standard >> setting bodies known as “study groups”. This would ensure the global >> compliance with IP enforcement norms that industry wants and that developed >> county governments project. Study group 11, which sets the standards on >> protocols and test specifications, has already undertaken the work program >> to develop a technical report on counterfeited and substandard ICT >> equipment. >> >> In addition, ITU Resolution 79 instructed study group 2 (that deals with >> operational aspects of service provision and telecommunications management), >> in collaboration with other relevant ITU study groups, to: >> >> (1) Prepare and document examples of best practices on limiting >> counterfeit and copied devices, for distribution to ITU Member States and >> Sector Members; >> >> (2) Prepare guidelines, methodologies and publications to assist Member >> States in identifying counterfeit devices and methods of increasing public >> awareness to restrict trade in these devices, as well as the best ways of >> limiting them; >> >> (3) Study the impact of counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices being >> transported to developing countries; >> >> (4) Continue studying safe ways of disposing of the harmful e-waste from >> the counterfeit devices currently in circulation in the world. >> >> ITU’s 14th Plenipotentiary Conference (PPC) on 20 October to 7 November >> 2014 in Busan, Republic of Korea adopted a resolution on “Combating >> counterfeit telecommunication/information and communication technology >> devices”. This is the first resolution exclusively focussing on >> counterfeit. >> >> However, the capture of ITU for the IP enforcement agenda started in 2010. >> The last PPC in 2010 held in Guadalajara, Mexico adopted Resolution 177 on >> “Conformance and interoperability”. This resolution invited the “Director of >> the Telecommunication Development Bureau, in close collaboration with the >> Director of the Telecommunication Standardization Bureau and the Director of >> the Radio communication Bureau to assist Member States in addressing their >> concerns with respect to counterfeit equipment”. >> >> Further the resolution invited Member States and Sector Members “to bear >> in mind the legal and regulatory frameworks of other countries concerning >> equipment that negatively affects the quality of their telecommunication >> infrastructure, in particular recognizing the concerns of developing >> countries with respect to counterfeit equipment”. >> >> (PPC takes place once in four years and is the top policy making body of >> ITU. It specifically makes the decisions in the following areas: sets the >> Union's general policies; adopts four-year strategic and financial plans; >> and elects the senior management team of the organization, the members of >> Council, and the members of the Radio Regulations Board; sets the work >> program for the next four years.) >> >> The latest PPC resolution i.e. COM5/4 (Busan 2014) sets out a full-fledged >> work program on IP enforcement. >> >> The Busan Resolution recognises: >> >> a) the growing problem related to the sale and circulation of >> counterfeit devices in the market, as well as the adverse consequences >> thereof for users, governments and the private sector; >> >> b) that counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices may >> negatively impact on security and quality of service for users; >> >> c) that counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices often >> contain illegal and unacceptable levels of hazardous substances, threatening >> consumers and the environment; >> >> d) that some countries have adopted measures to raise >> awareness of this issue and deployed successful solutions to deter the >> spread of counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices, and that developing >> countries may benefit from learning from those experiences; >> >> Further, the Busan Resolution states that it considers: >> >> a) that, in general, telecommunication/ICT devices that do not >> comply with a country's applicable national conformity processes and >> regulatory requirements or other applicable legal requirements, should be >> considered unauthorized for sale and/or activation on telecommunication >> networks of that country; >> >> b) that ITU and other relevant stakeholders have key roles to >> play in fostering coordination between the parties concerned to study the >> impact of counterfeit devices and the mechanism for limiting their use and >> to identify ways of dealing with them internationally and regionally; >> >> The Resolution further instruct the Directors of the three ITU Bureaux to: >> >> (1) Assist Member States in addressing their concerns with respect to >> counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices through information sharing at >> regional or global level, including conformity assessment systems; >> >> (2) Assist all the membership, considering relevant ITU-T (ITU >> Telecommunication Standardization Sector) recommendations, in taking the >> necessary actions to prevent or detect the tampering with and/or duplication >> of unique device identifiers, interacting with other telecommunication >> standards-development organizations related to these matters. >> >> The Busan Resolution also invites Member States to: >> >> (1) Take all necessary measures to combat counterfeit >> telecommunication/ICT devices; >> >> (2) Cooperate and exchange expertise among themselves in this area; and >> >> (3) Encourage participation in industry programmes combating counterfeit >> telecommunication/ICT devices. >> >> It also invites all the membership to: >> >> (1) Participate actively in ITU studies relating to combating counterfeit >> telecommunication/ICT devices by submitting contributions; >> >> (2) Take the necessary actions to prevent or detect the tampering of >> unique telecommunication/ICT devices identifiers. >> >> The earlier Resolution 79 from the March/April 2014 Dubai conference >> invites Member States and Sector Members “to bear in mind the legal and >> regulatory frameworks of other countries concerning equipment that >> negatively affects the quality of their telecommunication infrastructure and >> services, in particular recognizing the concerns of developing countries >> with respect to counterfeit equipment.” >> >> Further, Resolution 79 invites Member States to: >> >> (1) Take all necessary measures to combat counterfeit devices; >> >> (2) Cooperate and exchange expertise among themselves in this area; >> >> (3) Incorporate policies to combat counterfeit devices in their national >> telecommunication/ICT strategies. >> >> It also invites telecommunication operators “to cooperate with >> governments, administrations and telecommunication regulators in combating >> counterfeit devices, restricting trade in these devices and disposing of >> them safely, encourages Member States, Sector Members and Academia to >> participate actively in ITU-D (ITU Development Communication Sector) studies >> relating to combating counterfeit devices by submitting contributions and in >> other appropriate ways”.+ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Wed Nov 12 00:45:50 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 11:15:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] ITU work on counterfeit producs In-Reply-To: References: <5462EB02.1000601@itforchange.net> <149a2791a70.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <149a2894328.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> I hate it when that does get brought in, or manufacturers conflate legitimately manufactured third party alternatives with bogus components. Working on security requires rather more consensus than the cat fight a typical ITU conclave or civil society mailing list seems to engender.. On November 12, 2014 11:03:38 AM Seth Johnson wrote: > Oh, please. Bringing in "IP enforcement" is assuring that's not > confused with any other application. Which really needs to be > vitiated. > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > I will just state that any modern pharma plant uses heavily computerized > > machinery and robots in several cases where the chemical components may be > > hazardous to human health in their raw form, or where extreme levels of dust > > free environment is required for manufacturing. > > > > They have, prima facie, a legitimate interest in seeing that no bogus > > components turn up anywhere in their manufacturing chain. > > > > Safety and security in ict is a serious enough topic that bringing in IP > > enforcement only vitiates an essential debate and initiative. > > > > On November 12, 2014 10:38:26 AM parminder > > wrote: > >> > >> Those who were following the ITU PP meeting would have noticed the > >> resolution about counterfeit products. Most of us on the ground trained our > >> guns on the possible inclusion of the term 'unauthorised' which posed the > >> danger to extreme traceability of all communication. This term ' > >> unauthorised' was removed. > >> > >> Please see below an article by Gopa Kumar, of Third World Network, a > >> member of the Just Net Coalition, on how the 'counterfeit' part is > >> problematic enough. There is an ITU meeting on counterfeit products in > >> Geneva on 17th and 18th Nov, and it could be useful for some civil society > >> groups to come up with a statement underlining the concerns raised in the > >> below article. > >> > >> parminder > >> > >> ----- > >> > >> Title : TWN IP Info: Conference on ICT intellectual property enforcement > >> raises concerns > >> Date : 11 November 2014 > >> > >> Contents: > >> > >> TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (Nov14/05) > >> 12 November 2014 > >> Third World Network > >> > >> > >> > _________________________________________________________________________________________ > >> > >> Conference on ICT intellectual property enforcement raises concerns > >> > >> Geneva, 12 November (K M Gopakumar) – An upcoming conference on > >> intellectual property (IP) enforcement organised by the International > >> Telecommunication Union (ITU) raises concerns on the impact of IP protection > >> and enforcement on development. > >> > >> The ITU conference that will focus on information and communications > >> technology devices (ICT) is titled “Combating Counterfeit and Substandard > >> ICT devices” and will be held on 17-18 November 2014 in Geneva, Switzerland. > >> (For details see: > >> http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/WSHP_counterfeit.aspx) > >> > >> The conference has the following three objectives: > >> > >> (1) Discuss the global scope and impact of counterfeiting and > >> substandard ICT products on various stakeholders; > >> > >> (2) Highlight the common concerns, challenges, initiatives, > >> practices and opportunities of the various stakeholders in their fight > >> against counterfeiting and substandard ICT products; > >> > >> (3) Examine the possible role of ICT standards development > >> organizations (SDOs) and in particular the ITU, as part of the global > >> strategy and solution to curtail counterfeiting and substandard ICT products > >> as well as to assist members in addressing their concerns regarding > >> counterfeit devices. > >> > >> The conference will have the following four sessions > >> (http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/Programme.aspx): > >> > >> Policy debate: Governments’ Perspectives on Combating Counterfeit and > >> Substandard ICT Products; > >> Intergovernmental Initiatives Against Counterfeit and Substandard ICT; > >> Technology Debate, ICT Industry Perspectives and > >> Anti-Counterfeit/Substandard Technologies and Systems (parts 1 & 2); > >> Development Opportunities and International Standards as Part of the > >> Global Strategy Against Counterfeit and Substandard ICT Products. > >> > >> The list of speakers includes national regulators, ICT industry > >> associations (e.g. Mobile Manufacturers Forum, GSM Association, > >> International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations), > >> representatives of international organisations such as the World > >> Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), World Customs Organization (WCO), > >> World Trade Organization (WTO), Organization for Economic and Development > >> Cooperation (OECD) and the IP Directorate of the European Union, and ICT > >> transnational corporations (e.g. Cisco, Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard). > >> > >> The curious case of participation is the International Federation of > >> Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA), the only participant > >> that is not directly dealing with any ICT devices. However, IFPMMA has > >> long-standing experience in advocating for IP tough enforcement by cleverly > >> conflating IP enforcement with the quality of medicines. > >> > >> (Such conflation is designed to undermine generic medicines competition > >> with expensive patented or originator company's medicines, by confusing the > >> public and regulators into thinking that “counterfeit” medicines that are > >> about copying of trademark, medicines that have questionable quality, and > >> generic medicines are the same.) > >> > >> Interestingly the ICT industry is also pursuing the same strategy to push > >> for IP enforcement by citing the sceptre of safety and security. The > >> submission of the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF) to the conference states > >> that the counterfeit problem touches many aspects including health and > >> safety, environment, security quality of services, loss of tax revenue and > >> unfair competition. > >> > >> However, the IP angle is clearly articulated by some of the participants. > >> For instance, MMF in its submission states: “… both counterfeit and > >> substandard mobile phones avoid the payment of royalties to the rightful > >> intellectual right holders”. It further states that counterfeit mobile > >> phones explicitly infringe the trademark or design of an original or > >> authentic product: “A counterfeit mobile phone copies the trademark (brand) > >> of an original well recognised brand, copies the form factor of the original > >> product, and/or copies the packaging of the original product”. > >> > >> The MMF submission proposes increased enforcement, including legal backing > >> to block phones that do not possess a valid International Mobile Equipment > >> Identity (IMEI) number, which is used by GSM operators to track a phone. > >> IMEI is used mainly to block a stolen phone. MMF proposes the same system > >> to enforce IP. Often, through parallel importation, mobile handsets are sold > >> in informal markets with altered IMEI. MMF wants legal amendment of > >> national laws to prohibit the alteration or changing of IMEI numbers, and to > >> make it a criminal offence to distribute mobile phones with altered IMEI > >> numbers. > >> > >> (Parallel importation is the legal import by a third party of an IP > >> protected product when the IP holder has marketed that product outside the > >> importing country. In such a situation the IP holder’s consent is not needed > >> and no royalty payments are due to the IP holder.) > >> > >> The MMF submission also states: “Many counterfeit substandard mobile > >> phones are out of reach of the customs authorities because they happened to > >> be in transit through a particular country. This creates a huge loophole for > >> criminal organisations to distribute throughout the world as customs > >> officials are powerless to seize obvious counterfeit products that are being > >> shipped to a third country”. > >> > >> Therefore MMF signals that it wants customs authorities to have the power > >> to seize goods in transit, a measure that goes far beyond the requirement > >> under the Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. > >> > >> ITU joins the IP enforcement bandwagon > >> > >> ITU is the latest entrant in the IP enforcement game initiated by > >> developed countries and transnational corporation since around 2005. The IP > >> enforcement initiatives have found a place in the following multilateral > >> organisations: WHO, WIPO, WTO, WCO, International Postal Union, INTERPOL, UN > >> Office on Drugs and Crime. In most of these organisations IP enforcement > >> initiatives were pushed in the form of a public private partnership (PPP) to > >> achieve the goal of enforcing a private privilege (which a reward for > >> inventiveness and innovation is and not a “right”) using public money. > >> Developing countries have opposed and pushed back such initiatives in the > >> several multilateral organisations including the WHO, WCO, UNODC and IPU. > >> > >> The IP enforcement agenda within ITU has serious and far-reaching > >> implications on developing countries’ efforts to achieve local manufacturing > >> capabilities and it may affect the interests of small and medium sized > >> enterprises. Since the scope of the ICT devices is so broad any IP > >> enforcement initiative can affect not only mobile handsets but also many > >> areas of radio, telecommunications and computer equipment. > >> > >> Resolution 79 adopted at the ITU’s sixth World Telecommunication > >> Development Conference (WTDC-14) from 30 March to 14 April 2014 in Dubai, > >> United Arab Emirates defines counterfeit very broadly to read: “Counterfeit > >> telecommunication/ICT devices include counterfeit and/or copied devices and > >> equipment as well as accessories and components”. > >> > >> The general nature of recent IP enforcement initiatives is to push for > >> “TRIPS Plus” standards and to minimise the flexibilities available in the > >> TRIPS Agreement with regard to the protection and enforcement of IP. These > >> flexibilities are aimed at maintaining the space for developing countries to > >> innovate and develop themselves. The suggestion to clamp down the “grey > >> market” and to use service providers to deny services for devices that are > >> in the grey market would compromise the parallel importation tool available > >> under the IP laws of many countries. > >> > >> One of the dominant strategies of transnational corporate interests is to > >> incorporate IP enforcement strategies as part of standards setting and to > >> ensure that products which do not comply with a country's applicable > >> national conformity processes and regulatory requirements or other > >> applicable legal requirements, should be considered unauthorized for sale > >> and/or activation on telecommunication networks of that country. Thus the > >> upcoming November Conference is an event that offers a glimmer into the real > >> action that is in ITU’s standard setting bodies. > >> > >> The IP enforcement agenda in ITU is pushed through its various standard > >> setting bodies known as “study groups”. This would ensure the global > >> compliance with IP enforcement norms that industry wants and that developed > >> county governments project. Study group 11, which sets the standards on > >> protocols and test specifications, has already undertaken the work program > >> to develop a technical report on counterfeited and substandard ICT > >> equipment. > >> > >> In addition, ITU Resolution 79 instructed study group 2 (that deals with > >> operational aspects of service provision and telecommunications management), > >> in collaboration with other relevant ITU study groups, to: > >> > >> (1) Prepare and document examples of best practices on limiting > >> counterfeit and copied devices, for distribution to ITU Member States and > >> Sector Members; > >> > >> (2) Prepare guidelines, methodologies and publications to assist Member > >> States in identifying counterfeit devices and methods of increasing public > >> awareness to restrict trade in these devices, as well as the best ways of > >> limiting them; > >> > >> (3) Study the impact of counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices being > >> transported to developing countries; > >> > >> (4) Continue studying safe ways of disposing of the harmful e-waste from > >> the counterfeit devices currently in circulation in the world. > >> > >> ITU’s 14th Plenipotentiary Conference (PPC) on 20 October to 7 November > >> 2014 in Busan, Republic of Korea adopted a resolution on “Combating > >> counterfeit telecommunication/information and communication technology > >> devices”. This is the first resolution exclusively focussing on > >> counterfeit. > >> > >> However, the capture of ITU for the IP enforcement agenda started in 2010. > >> The last PPC in 2010 held in Guadalajara, Mexico adopted Resolution 177 on > >> “Conformance and interoperability”. This resolution invited the “Director of > >> the Telecommunication Development Bureau, in close collaboration with the > >> Director of the Telecommunication Standardization Bureau and the Director of > >> the Radio communication Bureau to assist Member States in addressing their > >> concerns with respect to counterfeit equipment”. > >> > >> Further the resolution invited Member States and Sector Members “to bear > >> in mind the legal and regulatory frameworks of other countries concerning > >> equipment that negatively affects the quality of their telecommunication > >> infrastructure, in particular recognizing the concerns of developing > >> countries with respect to counterfeit equipment”. > >> > >> (PPC takes place once in four years and is the top policy making body of > >> ITU. It specifically makes the decisions in the following areas: sets the > >> Union's general policies; adopts four-year strategic and financial plans; > >> and elects the senior management team of the organization, the members of > >> Council, and the members of the Radio Regulations Board; sets the work > >> program for the next four years.) > >> > >> The latest PPC resolution i.e. COM5/4 (Busan 2014) sets out a full-fledged > >> work program on IP enforcement. > >> > >> The Busan Resolution recognises: > >> > >> a) the growing problem related to the sale and circulation of > >> counterfeit devices in the market, as well as the adverse consequences > >> thereof for users, governments and the private sector; > >> > >> b) that counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices may > >> negatively impact on security and quality of service for users; > >> > >> c) that counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices often > >> contain illegal and unacceptable levels of hazardous substances, threatening > >> consumers and the environment; > >> > >> d) that some countries have adopted measures to raise > >> awareness of this issue and deployed successful solutions to deter the > >> spread of counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices, and that developing > >> countries may benefit from learning from those experiences; > >> > >> Further, the Busan Resolution states that it considers: > >> > >> a) that, in general, telecommunication/ICT devices that do not > >> comply with a country's applicable national conformity processes and > >> regulatory requirements or other applicable legal requirements, should be > >> considered unauthorized for sale and/or activation on telecommunication > >> networks of that country; > >> > >> b) that ITU and other relevant stakeholders have key roles to > >> play in fostering coordination between the parties concerned to study the > >> impact of counterfeit devices and the mechanism for limiting their use and > >> to identify ways of dealing with them internationally and regionally; > >> > >> The Resolution further instruct the Directors of the three ITU Bureaux to: > >> > >> (1) Assist Member States in addressing their concerns with respect to > >> counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices through information sharing at > >> regional or global level, including conformity assessment systems; > >> > >> (2) Assist all the membership, considering relevant ITU-T (ITU > >> Telecommunication Standardization Sector) recommendations, in taking the > >> necessary actions to prevent or detect the tampering with and/or duplication > >> of unique device identifiers, interacting with other telecommunication > >> standards-development organizations related to these matters. > >> > >> The Busan Resolution also invites Member States to: > >> > >> (1) Take all necessary measures to combat counterfeit > >> telecommunication/ICT devices; > >> > >> (2) Cooperate and exchange expertise among themselves in this area; and > >> > >> (3) Encourage participation in industry programmes combating counterfeit > >> telecommunication/ICT devices. > >> > >> It also invites all the membership to: > >> > >> (1) Participate actively in ITU studies relating to combating counterfeit > >> telecommunication/ICT devices by submitting contributions; > >> > >> (2) Take the necessary actions to prevent or detect the tampering of > >> unique telecommunication/ICT devices identifiers. > >> > >> The earlier Resolution 79 from the March/April 2014 Dubai conference > >> invites Member States and Sector Members “to bear in mind the legal and > >> regulatory frameworks of other countries concerning equipment that > >> negatively affects the quality of their telecommunication infrastructure and > >> services, in particular recognizing the concerns of developing countries > >> with respect to counterfeit equipment.” > >> > >> Further, Resolution 79 invites Member States to: > >> > >> (1) Take all necessary measures to combat counterfeit devices; > >> > >> (2) Cooperate and exchange expertise among themselves in this area; > >> > >> (3) Incorporate policies to combat counterfeit devices in their national > >> telecommunication/ICT strategies. > >> > >> It also invites telecommunication operators “to cooperate with > >> governments, administrations and telecommunication regulators in combating > >> counterfeit devices, restricting trade in these devices and disposing of > >> them safely, encourages Member States, Sector Members and Academia to > >> participate actively in ITU-D (ITU Development Communication Sector) studies > >> relating to combating counterfeit devices by submitting contributions and in > >> other appropriate ways”.+ > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your 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 seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Wed Nov 12 08:19:30 2014 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 08:19:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] ITU work on counterfeit producs In-Reply-To: <149a2894328.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <5462EB02.1000601@itforchange.net> <149a2791a70.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <149a2894328.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Working on distinguishing "IP enforcement" right now establishes the distinction before the transition of identifiers functions is implemented. Avoids just baking things into infrastructure without first confronting and addressing what that means, including at bottom the simple point that "IP enforcement" is different from other things people want to do. On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:45 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I hate it when that does get brought in, or manufacturers conflate > legitimately manufactured third party alternatives with bogus components. > Working on security requires rather more consensus than the cat fight a > typical ITU conclave or civil society mailing list seems to engender.. > > > > > On November 12, 2014 11:03:38 AM Seth Johnson > wrote: > >> Oh, please. Bringing in "IP enforcement" is assuring that's not >> confused with any other application. Which really needs to be >> vitiated. >> >> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> wrote: >> > I will just state that any modern pharma plant uses heavily computerized >> > machinery and robots in several cases where the chemical components may >> > be >> > hazardous to human health in their raw form, or where extreme levels of >> > dust >> > free environment is required for manufacturing. >> > >> > They have, prima facie, a legitimate interest in seeing that no bogus >> > components turn up anywhere in their manufacturing chain. >> > >> > Safety and security in ict is a serious enough topic that bringing in IP >> > enforcement only vitiates an essential debate and initiative. >> > >> > On November 12, 2014 10:38:26 AM parminder >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Those who were following the ITU PP meeting would have noticed the >> >> resolution about counterfeit products. Most of us on the ground trained >> >> our >> >> guns on the possible inclusion of the term 'unauthorised' which posed >> >> the >> >> danger to extreme traceability of all communication. This term ' >> >> unauthorised' was removed. >> >> >> >> Please see below an article by Gopa Kumar, of Third World Network, a >> >> member of the Just Net Coalition, on how the 'counterfeit' part is >> >> problematic enough. There is an ITU meeting on counterfeit products in >> >> Geneva on 17th and 18th Nov, and it could be useful for some civil >> >> society >> >> groups to come up with a statement underlining the concerns raised in >> >> the >> >> below article. >> >> >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> ----- >> >> >> >> Title : TWN IP Info: Conference on ICT intellectual property >> >> enforcement >> >> raises concerns >> >> Date : 11 November 2014 >> >> >> >> Contents: >> >> >> >> TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (Nov14/05) >> >> 12 November 2014 >> >> Third World Network >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________________________________ >> >> >> >> Conference on ICT intellectual property enforcement raises concerns >> >> >> >> Geneva, 12 November (K M Gopakumar) – An upcoming conference on >> >> intellectual property (IP) enforcement organised by the International >> >> Telecommunication Union (ITU) raises concerns on the impact of IP >> >> protection >> >> and enforcement on development. >> >> >> >> The ITU conference that will focus on information and communications >> >> technology devices (ICT) is titled “Combating Counterfeit and >> >> Substandard >> >> ICT devices” and will be held on 17-18 November 2014 in Geneva, >> >> Switzerland. >> >> (For details see: >> >> http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/WSHP_counterfeit.aspx) >> >> >> >> The conference has the following three objectives: >> >> >> >> (1) Discuss the global scope and impact of counterfeiting and >> >> substandard ICT products on various stakeholders; >> >> >> >> (2) Highlight the common concerns, challenges, initiatives, >> >> practices and opportunities of the various stakeholders in their fight >> >> against counterfeiting and substandard ICT products; >> >> >> >> (3) Examine the possible role of ICT standards development >> >> organizations (SDOs) and in particular the ITU, as part of the global >> >> strategy and solution to curtail counterfeiting and substandard ICT >> >> products >> >> as well as to assist members in addressing their concerns regarding >> >> counterfeit devices. >> >> >> >> The conference will have the following four sessions >> >> (http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/Programme.aspx): >> >> >> >> Policy debate: Governments’ Perspectives on Combating Counterfeit and >> >> Substandard ICT Products; >> >> Intergovernmental Initiatives Against Counterfeit and Substandard ICT; >> >> Technology Debate, ICT Industry Perspectives and >> >> Anti-Counterfeit/Substandard Technologies and Systems (parts 1 & 2); >> >> Development Opportunities and International Standards as Part of the >> >> Global Strategy Against Counterfeit and Substandard ICT Products. >> >> >> >> The list of speakers includes national regulators, ICT industry >> >> associations (e.g. Mobile Manufacturers Forum, GSM Association, >> >> International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & >> >> Associations), >> >> representatives of international organisations such as the World >> >> Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), World Customs Organization >> >> (WCO), >> >> World Trade Organization (WTO), Organization for Economic and >> >> Development >> >> Cooperation (OECD) and the IP Directorate of the European Union, and >> >> ICT >> >> transnational corporations (e.g. Cisco, Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard). >> >> >> >> The curious case of participation is the International Federation of >> >> Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA), the only >> >> participant >> >> that is not directly dealing with any ICT devices. However, IFPMMA has >> >> long-standing experience in advocating for IP tough enforcement by >> >> cleverly >> >> conflating IP enforcement with the quality of medicines. >> >> >> >> (Such conflation is designed to undermine generic medicines competition >> >> with expensive patented or originator company's medicines, by confusing >> >> the >> >> public and regulators into thinking that “counterfeit” medicines that >> >> are >> >> about copying of trademark, medicines that have questionable quality, >> >> and >> >> generic medicines are the same.) >> >> >> >> Interestingly the ICT industry is also pursuing the same strategy to >> >> push >> >> for IP enforcement by citing the sceptre of safety and security. The >> >> submission of the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF) to the conference >> >> states >> >> that the counterfeit problem touches many aspects including health and >> >> safety, environment, security quality of services, loss of tax revenue >> >> and >> >> unfair competition. >> >> >> >> However, the IP angle is clearly articulated by some of the >> >> participants. >> >> For instance, MMF in its submission states: “… both counterfeit and >> >> substandard mobile phones avoid the payment of royalties to the >> >> rightful >> >> intellectual right holders”. It further states that counterfeit mobile >> >> phones explicitly infringe the trademark or design of an original or >> >> authentic product: “A counterfeit mobile phone copies the trademark >> >> (brand) >> >> of an original well recognised brand, copies the form factor of the >> >> original >> >> product, and/or copies the packaging of the original product”. >> >> >> >> The MMF submission proposes increased enforcement, including legal >> >> backing >> >> to block phones that do not possess a valid International Mobile >> >> Equipment >> >> Identity (IMEI) number, which is used by GSM operators to track a >> >> phone. >> >> IMEI is used mainly to block a stolen phone. MMF proposes the same >> >> system >> >> to enforce IP. Often, through parallel importation, mobile handsets are >> >> sold >> >> in informal markets with altered IMEI. MMF wants legal amendment of >> >> national laws to prohibit the alteration or changing of IMEI numbers, >> >> and to >> >> make it a criminal offence to distribute mobile phones with altered >> >> IMEI >> >> numbers. >> >> >> >> (Parallel importation is the legal import by a third party of an IP >> >> protected product when the IP holder has marketed that product outside >> >> the >> >> importing country. In such a situation the IP holder’s consent is not >> >> needed >> >> and no royalty payments are due to the IP holder.) >> >> >> >> The MMF submission also states: “Many counterfeit substandard mobile >> >> phones are out of reach of the customs authorities because they >> >> happened to >> >> be in transit through a particular country. This creates a huge >> >> loophole for >> >> criminal organisations to distribute throughout the world as customs >> >> officials are powerless to seize obvious counterfeit products that are >> >> being >> >> shipped to a third country”. >> >> >> >> Therefore MMF signals that it wants customs authorities to have the >> >> power >> >> to seize goods in transit, a measure that goes far beyond the >> >> requirement >> >> under the Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. >> >> >> >> ITU joins the IP enforcement bandwagon >> >> >> >> ITU is the latest entrant in the IP enforcement game initiated by >> >> developed countries and transnational corporation since around 2005. >> >> The IP >> >> enforcement initiatives have found a place in the following >> >> multilateral >> >> organisations: WHO, WIPO, WTO, WCO, International Postal Union, >> >> INTERPOL, UN >> >> Office on Drugs and Crime. In most of these organisations IP >> >> enforcement >> >> initiatives were pushed in the form of a public private partnership >> >> (PPP) to >> >> achieve the goal of enforcing a private privilege (which a reward for >> >> inventiveness and innovation is and not a “right”) using public money. >> >> Developing countries have opposed and pushed back such initiatives in >> >> the >> >> several multilateral organisations including the WHO, WCO, UNODC and >> >> IPU. >> >> >> >> The IP enforcement agenda within ITU has serious and far-reaching >> >> implications on developing countries’ efforts to achieve local >> >> manufacturing >> >> capabilities and it may affect the interests of small and medium sized >> >> enterprises. Since the scope of the ICT devices is so broad any IP >> >> enforcement initiative can affect not only mobile handsets but also >> >> many >> >> areas of radio, telecommunications and computer equipment. >> >> >> >> Resolution 79 adopted at the ITU’s sixth World Telecommunication >> >> Development Conference (WTDC-14) from 30 March to 14 April 2014 in >> >> Dubai, >> >> United Arab Emirates defines counterfeit very broadly to read: >> >> “Counterfeit >> >> telecommunication/ICT devices include counterfeit and/or copied devices >> >> and >> >> equipment as well as accessories and components”. >> >> >> >> The general nature of recent IP enforcement initiatives is to push for >> >> “TRIPS Plus” standards and to minimise the flexibilities available in >> >> the >> >> TRIPS Agreement with regard to the protection and enforcement of IP. >> >> These >> >> flexibilities are aimed at maintaining the space for developing >> >> countries to >> >> innovate and develop themselves. The suggestion to clamp down the “grey >> >> market” and to use service providers to deny services for devices that >> >> are >> >> in the grey market would compromise the parallel importation tool >> >> available >> >> under the IP laws of many countries. >> >> >> >> One of the dominant strategies of transnational corporate interests is >> >> to >> >> incorporate IP enforcement strategies as part of standards setting and >> >> to >> >> ensure that products which do not comply with a country's applicable >> >> national conformity processes and regulatory requirements or other >> >> applicable legal requirements, should be considered unauthorized for >> >> sale >> >> and/or activation on telecommunication networks of that country. Thus >> >> the >> >> upcoming November Conference is an event that offers a glimmer into the >> >> real >> >> action that is in ITU’s standard setting bodies. >> >> >> >> The IP enforcement agenda in ITU is pushed through its various standard >> >> setting bodies known as “study groups”. This would ensure the global >> >> compliance with IP enforcement norms that industry wants and that >> >> developed >> >> county governments project. Study group 11, which sets the standards on >> >> protocols and test specifications, has already undertaken the work >> >> program >> >> to develop a technical report on counterfeited and substandard ICT >> >> equipment. >> >> >> >> In addition, ITU Resolution 79 instructed study group 2 (that deals >> >> with >> >> operational aspects of service provision and telecommunications >> >> management), >> >> in collaboration with other relevant ITU study groups, to: >> >> >> >> (1) Prepare and document examples of best practices on limiting >> >> counterfeit and copied devices, for distribution to ITU Member States >> >> and >> >> Sector Members; >> >> >> >> (2) Prepare guidelines, methodologies and publications to assist Member >> >> States in identifying counterfeit devices and methods of increasing >> >> public >> >> awareness to restrict trade in these devices, as well as the best ways >> >> of >> >> limiting them; >> >> >> >> (3) Study the impact of counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices being >> >> transported to developing countries; >> >> >> >> (4) Continue studying safe ways of disposing of the harmful e-waste >> >> from >> >> the counterfeit devices currently in circulation in the world. >> >> >> >> ITU’s 14th Plenipotentiary Conference (PPC) on 20 October to 7 >> >> November >> >> 2014 in Busan, Republic of Korea adopted a resolution on “Combating >> >> counterfeit telecommunication/information and communication technology >> >> devices”. This is the first resolution exclusively focussing on >> >> counterfeit. >> >> >> >> However, the capture of ITU for the IP enforcement agenda started in >> >> 2010. >> >> The last PPC in 2010 held in Guadalajara, Mexico adopted Resolution 177 >> >> on >> >> “Conformance and interoperability”. This resolution invited the >> >> “Director of >> >> the Telecommunication Development Bureau, in close collaboration with >> >> the >> >> Director of the Telecommunication Standardization Bureau and the >> >> Director of >> >> the Radio communication Bureau to assist Member States in addressing >> >> their >> >> concerns with respect to counterfeit equipment”. >> >> >> >> Further the resolution invited Member States and Sector Members “to >> >> bear >> >> in mind the legal and regulatory frameworks of other countries >> >> concerning >> >> equipment that negatively affects the quality of their >> >> telecommunication >> >> infrastructure, in particular recognizing the concerns of developing >> >> countries with respect to counterfeit equipment”. >> >> >> >> (PPC takes place once in four years and is the top policy making body >> >> of >> >> ITU. It specifically makes the decisions in the following areas: sets >> >> the >> >> Union's general policies; adopts four-year strategic and financial >> >> plans; >> >> and elects the senior management team of the organization, the members >> >> of >> >> Council, and the members of the Radio Regulations Board; sets the work >> >> program for the next four years.) >> >> >> >> The latest PPC resolution i.e. COM5/4 (Busan 2014) sets out a >> >> full-fledged >> >> work program on IP enforcement. >> >> >> >> The Busan Resolution recognises: >> >> >> >> a) the growing problem related to the sale and circulation >> >> of >> >> counterfeit devices in the market, as well as the adverse consequences >> >> thereof for users, governments and the private sector; >> >> >> >> b) that counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices may >> >> negatively impact on security and quality of service for users; >> >> >> >> c) that counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices often >> >> contain illegal and unacceptable levels of hazardous substances, >> >> threatening >> >> consumers and the environment; >> >> >> >> d) that some countries have adopted measures to raise >> >> awareness of this issue and deployed successful solutions to deter the >> >> spread of counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices, and that >> >> developing >> >> countries may benefit from learning from those experiences; >> >> >> >> Further, the Busan Resolution states that it considers: >> >> >> >> a) that, in general, telecommunication/ICT devices that do >> >> not >> >> comply with a country's applicable national conformity processes and >> >> regulatory requirements or other applicable legal requirements, should >> >> be >> >> considered unauthorized for sale and/or activation on telecommunication >> >> networks of that country; >> >> >> >> b) that ITU and other relevant stakeholders have key roles >> >> to >> >> play in fostering coordination between the parties concerned to study >> >> the >> >> impact of counterfeit devices and the mechanism for limiting their use >> >> and >> >> to identify ways of dealing with them internationally and regionally; >> >> >> >> The Resolution further instruct the Directors of the three ITU Bureaux >> >> to: >> >> >> >> (1) Assist Member States in addressing their concerns with respect to >> >> counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices through information sharing >> >> at >> >> regional or global level, including conformity assessment systems; >> >> >> >> (2) Assist all the membership, considering relevant ITU-T (ITU >> >> Telecommunication Standardization Sector) recommendations, in taking >> >> the >> >> necessary actions to prevent or detect the tampering with and/or >> >> duplication >> >> of unique device identifiers, interacting with other telecommunication >> >> standards-development organizations related to these matters. >> >> >> >> The Busan Resolution also invites Member States to: >> >> >> >> (1) Take all necessary measures to combat counterfeit >> >> telecommunication/ICT devices; >> >> >> >> (2) Cooperate and exchange expertise among themselves in this area; >> >> and >> >> >> >> (3) Encourage participation in industry programmes combating >> >> counterfeit >> >> telecommunication/ICT devices. >> >> >> >> It also invites all the membership to: >> >> >> >> (1) Participate actively in ITU studies relating to combating >> >> counterfeit >> >> telecommunication/ICT devices by submitting contributions; >> >> >> >> (2) Take the necessary actions to prevent or detect the tampering of >> >> unique telecommunication/ICT devices identifiers. >> >> >> >> The earlier Resolution 79 from the March/April 2014 Dubai conference >> >> invites Member States and Sector Members “to bear in mind the legal and >> >> regulatory frameworks of other countries concerning equipment that >> >> negatively affects the quality of their telecommunication >> >> infrastructure and >> >> services, in particular recognizing the concerns of developing >> >> countries >> >> with respect to counterfeit equipment.” >> >> >> >> Further, Resolution 79 invites Member States to: >> >> >> >> (1) Take all necessary measures to combat counterfeit devices; >> >> >> >> (2) Cooperate and exchange expertise among themselves in this area; >> >> >> >> (3) Incorporate policies to combat counterfeit devices in their >> >> national >> >> telecommunication/ICT strategies. >> >> >> >> It also invites telecommunication operators “to cooperate with >> >> governments, administrations and telecommunication regulators in >> >> combating >> >> counterfeit devices, restricting trade in these devices and disposing >> >> of >> >> them safely, encourages Member States, Sector Members and Academia to >> >> participate actively in ITU-D (ITU Development Communication Sector) >> >> studies >> >> relating to combating counterfeit devices by submitting contributions >> >> and in >> >> other appropriate ways”.+ >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your 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 Wed Nov 12 09:15:44 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 19:45:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] ITU work on counterfeit producs In-Reply-To: References: <5462EB02.1000601@itforchange.net> <149a2791a70.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <149a2894328.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Fair point --srs (iPad) > On 12-Nov-2014, at 18:49, Seth Johnson wrote: > > Working on distinguishing "IP enforcement" right now establishes the > distinction before the transition of identifiers functions is > implemented. Avoids just baking things into infrastructure without > first confronting and addressing what that means, including at bottom > the simple point that "IP enforcement" is different from other things > people want to do. > > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:45 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >> I hate it when that does get brought in, or manufacturers conflate >> legitimately manufactured third party alternatives with bogus components. >> Working on security requires rather more consensus than the cat fight a >> typical ITU conclave or civil society mailing list seems to engender.. >> >> >> >> >> On November 12, 2014 11:03:38 AM Seth Johnson >> wrote: >> >>> Oh, please. Bringing in "IP enforcement" is assuring that's not >>> confused with any other application. Which really needs to be >>> vitiated. >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >>> wrote: >>>> I will just state that any modern pharma plant uses heavily computerized >>>> machinery and robots in several cases where the chemical components may >>>> be >>>> hazardous to human health in their raw form, or where extreme levels of >>>> dust >>>> free environment is required for manufacturing. >>>> >>>> They have, prima facie, a legitimate interest in seeing that no bogus >>>> components turn up anywhere in their manufacturing chain. >>>> >>>> Safety and security in ict is a serious enough topic that bringing in IP >>>> enforcement only vitiates an essential debate and initiative. >>>> >>>> On November 12, 2014 10:38:26 AM parminder >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Those who were following the ITU PP meeting would have noticed the >>>>> resolution about counterfeit products. Most of us on the ground trained >>>>> our >>>>> guns on the possible inclusion of the term 'unauthorised' which posed >>>>> the >>>>> danger to extreme traceability of all communication. This term ' >>>>> unauthorised' was removed. >>>>> >>>>> Please see below an article by Gopa Kumar, of Third World Network, a >>>>> member of the Just Net Coalition, on how the 'counterfeit' part is >>>>> problematic enough. There is an ITU meeting on counterfeit products in >>>>> Geneva on 17th and 18th Nov, and it could be useful for some civil >>>>> society >>>>> groups to come up with a statement underlining the concerns raised in >>>>> the >>>>> below article. >>>>> >>>>> parminder >>>>> >>>>> ----- >>>>> >>>>> Title : TWN IP Info: Conference on ICT intellectual property >>>>> enforcement >>>>> raises concerns >>>>> Date : 11 November 2014 >>>>> >>>>> Contents: >>>>> >>>>> TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (Nov14/05) >>>>> 12 November 2014 >>>>> Third World Network >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _________________________________________________________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> Conference on ICT intellectual property enforcement raises concerns >>>>> >>>>> Geneva, 12 November (K M Gopakumar) – An upcoming conference on >>>>> intellectual property (IP) enforcement organised by the International >>>>> Telecommunication Union (ITU) raises concerns on the impact of IP >>>>> protection >>>>> and enforcement on development. >>>>> >>>>> The ITU conference that will focus on information and communications >>>>> technology devices (ICT) is titled “Combating Counterfeit and >>>>> Substandard >>>>> ICT devices” and will be held on 17-18 November 2014 in Geneva, >>>>> Switzerland. >>>>> (For details see: >>>>> http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/WSHP_counterfeit.aspx) >>>>> >>>>> The conference has the following three objectives: >>>>> >>>>> (1) Discuss the global scope and impact of counterfeiting and >>>>> substandard ICT products on various stakeholders; >>>>> >>>>> (2) Highlight the common concerns, challenges, initiatives, >>>>> practices and opportunities of the various stakeholders in their fight >>>>> against counterfeiting and substandard ICT products; >>>>> >>>>> (3) Examine the possible role of ICT standards development >>>>> organizations (SDOs) and in particular the ITU, as part of the global >>>>> strategy and solution to curtail counterfeiting and substandard ICT >>>>> products >>>>> as well as to assist members in addressing their concerns regarding >>>>> counterfeit devices. >>>>> >>>>> The conference will have the following four sessions >>>>> (http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/Programme.aspx): >>>>> >>>>> Policy debate: Governments’ Perspectives on Combating Counterfeit and >>>>> Substandard ICT Products; >>>>> Intergovernmental Initiatives Against Counterfeit and Substandard ICT; >>>>> Technology Debate, ICT Industry Perspectives and >>>>> Anti-Counterfeit/Substandard Technologies and Systems (parts 1 & 2); >>>>> Development Opportunities and International Standards as Part of the >>>>> Global Strategy Against Counterfeit and Substandard ICT Products. >>>>> >>>>> The list of speakers includes national regulators, ICT industry >>>>> associations (e.g. Mobile Manufacturers Forum, GSM Association, >>>>> International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & >>>>> Associations), >>>>> representatives of international organisations such as the World >>>>> Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), World Customs Organization >>>>> (WCO), >>>>> World Trade Organization (WTO), Organization for Economic and >>>>> Development >>>>> Cooperation (OECD) and the IP Directorate of the European Union, and >>>>> ICT >>>>> transnational corporations (e.g. Cisco, Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard). >>>>> >>>>> The curious case of participation is the International Federation of >>>>> Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA), the only >>>>> participant >>>>> that is not directly dealing with any ICT devices. However, IFPMMA has >>>>> long-standing experience in advocating for IP tough enforcement by >>>>> cleverly >>>>> conflating IP enforcement with the quality of medicines. >>>>> >>>>> (Such conflation is designed to undermine generic medicines competition >>>>> with expensive patented or originator company's medicines, by confusing >>>>> the >>>>> public and regulators into thinking that “counterfeit” medicines that >>>>> are >>>>> about copying of trademark, medicines that have questionable quality, >>>>> and >>>>> generic medicines are the same.) >>>>> >>>>> Interestingly the ICT industry is also pursuing the same strategy to >>>>> push >>>>> for IP enforcement by citing the sceptre of safety and security. The >>>>> submission of the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF) to the conference >>>>> states >>>>> that the counterfeit problem touches many aspects including health and >>>>> safety, environment, security quality of services, loss of tax revenue >>>>> and >>>>> unfair competition. >>>>> >>>>> However, the IP angle is clearly articulated by some of the >>>>> participants. >>>>> For instance, MMF in its submission states: “… both counterfeit and >>>>> substandard mobile phones avoid the payment of royalties to the >>>>> rightful >>>>> intellectual right holders”. It further states that counterfeit mobile >>>>> phones explicitly infringe the trademark or design of an original or >>>>> authentic product: “A counterfeit mobile phone copies the trademark >>>>> (brand) >>>>> of an original well recognised brand, copies the form factor of the >>>>> original >>>>> product, and/or copies the packaging of the original product”. >>>>> >>>>> The MMF submission proposes increased enforcement, including legal >>>>> backing >>>>> to block phones that do not possess a valid International Mobile >>>>> Equipment >>>>> Identity (IMEI) number, which is used by GSM operators to track a >>>>> phone. >>>>> IMEI is used mainly to block a stolen phone. MMF proposes the same >>>>> system >>>>> to enforce IP. Often, through parallel importation, mobile handsets are >>>>> sold >>>>> in informal markets with altered IMEI. MMF wants legal amendment of >>>>> national laws to prohibit the alteration or changing of IMEI numbers, >>>>> and to >>>>> make it a criminal offence to distribute mobile phones with altered >>>>> IMEI >>>>> numbers. >>>>> >>>>> (Parallel importation is the legal import by a third party of an IP >>>>> protected product when the IP holder has marketed that product outside >>>>> the >>>>> importing country. In such a situation the IP holder’s consent is not >>>>> needed >>>>> and no royalty payments are due to the IP holder.) >>>>> >>>>> The MMF submission also states: “Many counterfeit substandard mobile >>>>> phones are out of reach of the customs authorities because they >>>>> happened to >>>>> be in transit through a particular country. This creates a huge >>>>> loophole for >>>>> criminal organisations to distribute throughout the world as customs >>>>> officials are powerless to seize obvious counterfeit products that are >>>>> being >>>>> shipped to a third country”. >>>>> >>>>> Therefore MMF signals that it wants customs authorities to have the >>>>> power >>>>> to seize goods in transit, a measure that goes far beyond the >>>>> requirement >>>>> under the Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. >>>>> >>>>> ITU joins the IP enforcement bandwagon >>>>> >>>>> ITU is the latest entrant in the IP enforcement game initiated by >>>>> developed countries and transnational corporation since around 2005. >>>>> The IP >>>>> enforcement initiatives have found a place in the following >>>>> multilateral >>>>> organisations: WHO, WIPO, WTO, WCO, International Postal Union, >>>>> INTERPOL, UN >>>>> Office on Drugs and Crime. In most of these organisations IP >>>>> enforcement >>>>> initiatives were pushed in the form of a public private partnership >>>>> (PPP) to >>>>> achieve the goal of enforcing a private privilege (which a reward for >>>>> inventiveness and innovation is and not a “right”) using public money. >>>>> Developing countries have opposed and pushed back such initiatives in >>>>> the >>>>> several multilateral organisations including the WHO, WCO, UNODC and >>>>> IPU. >>>>> >>>>> The IP enforcement agenda within ITU has serious and far-reaching >>>>> implications on developing countries’ efforts to achieve local >>>>> manufacturing >>>>> capabilities and it may affect the interests of small and medium sized >>>>> enterprises. Since the scope of the ICT devices is so broad any IP >>>>> enforcement initiative can affect not only mobile handsets but also >>>>> many >>>>> areas of radio, telecommunications and computer equipment. >>>>> >>>>> Resolution 79 adopted at the ITU’s sixth World Telecommunication >>>>> Development Conference (WTDC-14) from 30 March to 14 April 2014 in >>>>> Dubai, >>>>> United Arab Emirates defines counterfeit very broadly to read: >>>>> “Counterfeit >>>>> telecommunication/ICT devices include counterfeit and/or copied devices >>>>> and >>>>> equipment as well as accessories and components”. >>>>> >>>>> The general nature of recent IP enforcement initiatives is to push for >>>>> “TRIPS Plus” standards and to minimise the flexibilities available in >>>>> the >>>>> TRIPS Agreement with regard to the protection and enforcement of IP. >>>>> These >>>>> flexibilities are aimed at maintaining the space for developing >>>>> countries to >>>>> innovate and develop themselves. The suggestion to clamp down the “grey >>>>> market” and to use service providers to deny services for devices that >>>>> are >>>>> in the grey market would compromise the parallel importation tool >>>>> available >>>>> under the IP laws of many countries. >>>>> >>>>> One of the dominant strategies of transnational corporate interests is >>>>> to >>>>> incorporate IP enforcement strategies as part of standards setting and >>>>> to >>>>> ensure that products which do not comply with a country's applicable >>>>> national conformity processes and regulatory requirements or other >>>>> applicable legal requirements, should be considered unauthorized for >>>>> sale >>>>> and/or activation on telecommunication networks of that country. Thus >>>>> the >>>>> upcoming November Conference is an event that offers a glimmer into the >>>>> real >>>>> action that is in ITU’s standard setting bodies. >>>>> >>>>> The IP enforcement agenda in ITU is pushed through its various standard >>>>> setting bodies known as “study groups”. This would ensure the global >>>>> compliance with IP enforcement norms that industry wants and that >>>>> developed >>>>> county governments project. Study group 11, which sets the standards on >>>>> protocols and test specifications, has already undertaken the work >>>>> program >>>>> to develop a technical report on counterfeited and substandard ICT >>>>> equipment. >>>>> >>>>> In addition, ITU Resolution 79 instructed study group 2 (that deals >>>>> with >>>>> operational aspects of service provision and telecommunications >>>>> management), >>>>> in collaboration with other relevant ITU study groups, to: >>>>> >>>>> (1) Prepare and document examples of best practices on limiting >>>>> counterfeit and copied devices, for distribution to ITU Member States >>>>> and >>>>> Sector Members; >>>>> >>>>> (2) Prepare guidelines, methodologies and publications to assist Member >>>>> States in identifying counterfeit devices and methods of increasing >>>>> public >>>>> awareness to restrict trade in these devices, as well as the best ways >>>>> of >>>>> limiting them; >>>>> >>>>> (3) Study the impact of counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices being >>>>> transported to developing countries; >>>>> >>>>> (4) Continue studying safe ways of disposing of the harmful e-waste >>>>> from >>>>> the counterfeit devices currently in circulation in the world. >>>>> >>>>> ITU’s 14th Plenipotentiary Conference (PPC) on 20 October to 7 >>>>> November >>>>> 2014 in Busan, Republic of Korea adopted a resolution on “Combating >>>>> counterfeit telecommunication/information and communication technology >>>>> devices”. This is the first resolution exclusively focussing on >>>>> counterfeit. >>>>> >>>>> However, the capture of ITU for the IP enforcement agenda started in >>>>> 2010. >>>>> The last PPC in 2010 held in Guadalajara, Mexico adopted Resolution 177 >>>>> on >>>>> “Conformance and interoperability”. This resolution invited the >>>>> “Director of >>>>> the Telecommunication Development Bureau, in close collaboration with >>>>> the >>>>> Director of the Telecommunication Standardization Bureau and the >>>>> Director of >>>>> the Radio communication Bureau to assist Member States in addressing >>>>> their >>>>> concerns with respect to counterfeit equipment”. >>>>> >>>>> Further the resolution invited Member States and Sector Members “to >>>>> bear >>>>> in mind the legal and regulatory frameworks of other countries >>>>> concerning >>>>> equipment that negatively affects the quality of their >>>>> telecommunication >>>>> infrastructure, in particular recognizing the concerns of developing >>>>> countries with respect to counterfeit equipment”. >>>>> >>>>> (PPC takes place once in four years and is the top policy making body >>>>> of >>>>> ITU. It specifically makes the decisions in the following areas: sets >>>>> the >>>>> Union's general policies; adopts four-year strategic and financial >>>>> plans; >>>>> and elects the senior management team of the organization, the members >>>>> of >>>>> Council, and the members of the Radio Regulations Board; sets the work >>>>> program for the next four years.) >>>>> >>>>> The latest PPC resolution i.e. COM5/4 (Busan 2014) sets out a >>>>> full-fledged >>>>> work program on IP enforcement. >>>>> >>>>> The Busan Resolution recognises: >>>>> >>>>> a) the growing problem related to the sale and circulation >>>>> of >>>>> counterfeit devices in the market, as well as the adverse consequences >>>>> thereof for users, governments and the private sector; >>>>> >>>>> b) that counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices may >>>>> negatively impact on security and quality of service for users; >>>>> >>>>> c) that counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices often >>>>> contain illegal and unacceptable levels of hazardous substances, >>>>> threatening >>>>> consumers and the environment; >>>>> >>>>> d) that some countries have adopted measures to raise >>>>> awareness of this issue and deployed successful solutions to deter the >>>>> spread of counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices, and that >>>>> developing >>>>> countries may benefit from learning from those experiences; >>>>> >>>>> Further, the Busan Resolution states that it considers: >>>>> >>>>> a) that, in general, telecommunication/ICT devices that do >>>>> not >>>>> comply with a country's applicable national conformity processes and >>>>> regulatory requirements or other applicable legal requirements, should >>>>> be >>>>> considered unauthorized for sale and/or activation on telecommunication >>>>> networks of that country; >>>>> >>>>> b) that ITU and other relevant stakeholders have key roles >>>>> to >>>>> play in fostering coordination between the parties concerned to study >>>>> the >>>>> impact of counterfeit devices and the mechanism for limiting their use >>>>> and >>>>> to identify ways of dealing with them internationally and regionally; >>>>> >>>>> The Resolution further instruct the Directors of the three ITU Bureaux >>>>> to: >>>>> >>>>> (1) Assist Member States in addressing their concerns with respect to >>>>> counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices through information sharing >>>>> at >>>>> regional or global level, including conformity assessment systems; >>>>> >>>>> (2) Assist all the membership, considering relevant ITU-T (ITU >>>>> Telecommunication Standardization Sector) recommendations, in taking >>>>> the >>>>> necessary actions to prevent or detect the tampering with and/or >>>>> duplication >>>>> of unique device identifiers, interacting with other telecommunication >>>>> standards-development organizations related to these matters. >>>>> >>>>> The Busan Resolution also invites Member States to: >>>>> >>>>> (1) Take all necessary measures to combat counterfeit >>>>> telecommunication/ICT devices; >>>>> >>>>> (2) Cooperate and exchange expertise among themselves in this area; >>>>> and >>>>> >>>>> (3) Encourage participation in industry programmes combating >>>>> counterfeit >>>>> telecommunication/ICT devices. >>>>> >>>>> It also invites all the membership to: >>>>> >>>>> (1) Participate actively in ITU studies relating to combating >>>>> counterfeit >>>>> telecommunication/ICT devices by submitting contributions; >>>>> >>>>> (2) Take the necessary actions to prevent or detect the tampering of >>>>> unique telecommunication/ICT devices identifiers. >>>>> >>>>> The earlier Resolution 79 from the March/April 2014 Dubai conference >>>>> invites Member States and Sector Members “to bear in mind the legal and >>>>> regulatory frameworks of other countries concerning equipment that >>>>> negatively affects the quality of their telecommunication >>>>> infrastructure and >>>>> services, in particular recognizing the concerns of developing >>>>> countries >>>>> with respect to counterfeit equipment.” >>>>> >>>>> Further, Resolution 79 invites Member States to: >>>>> >>>>> (1) Take all necessary measures to combat counterfeit devices; >>>>> >>>>> (2) Cooperate and exchange expertise among themselves in this area; >>>>> >>>>> (3) Incorporate policies to combat counterfeit devices in their >>>>> national >>>>> telecommunication/ICT strategies. >>>>> >>>>> It also invites telecommunication operators “to cooperate with >>>>> governments, administrations and telecommunication regulators in >>>>> combating >>>>> counterfeit devices, restricting trade in these devices and disposing >>>>> of >>>>> them safely, encourages Member States, Sector Members and Academia to >>>>> participate actively in ITU-D (ITU Development Communication Sector) >>>>> studies >>>>> relating to combating counterfeit devices by submitting contributions >>>>> and in >>>>> other appropriate ways”.+ >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your 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 Wed Nov 12 21:17:13 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 20:17:13 -0600 Subject: [governance] U.S. Court Quashes Attempts to Attach ccTLDs: Federal Judge Agrees with ICANN Message-ID: So ccTLDs aren't property after all.... https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-11-12-en -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Nov 13 01:13:25 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 01:13:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] U.S. Court Quashes Attempts to Attach ccTLDs: Federal Judge Agrees with ICANN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <21604.19461.379207.367022@world.std.com> From: McTim >So ccTLDs aren't property after all.... > >https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-11-12-en More precisely, "not property subject to attachment under District of Columbia law". The reasoning rests more on "A ccTLD, like a domain name, cannot be conceptualized apart from the services provided by these parties. The Court cannot order plaintiffs' insertion into this arrangement." https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/order-memo-granting-motion-to-quash-writs-10nov14-en.pdf or http://tinyurl.com/pmu2trj for the decision text, short, 8 pages. -- -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 bzs at world.std.com Thu Nov 13 02:50:26 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 02:50:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] U.S. Court Quashes Attempts to Attach ccTLDs: Federal Judge Agrees with ICANN In-Reply-To: <21604.19461.379207.367022@world.std.com> References: <21604.19461.379207.367022@world.std.com> Message-ID: <21604.25282.729268.357075@world.std.com> Also, last page, last words of the decision (footnote 2): "The Court notes that judicial decisions have construed domain names to be a form of intangible property. See...But the conclusion that ccTLDs may not be attached in satisfaction of judgement under District of Columbia law does not mean they cannot be property. It simply means that they are not attachable property within this statutory scheme..." (link below) On November 13, 2014 at 01:13 bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) wrote: > > From: McTim > >So ccTLDs aren't property after all.... > > > >https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-11-12-en > > More precisely, "not property subject to attachment under District of > Columbia law". > > The reasoning rests more on "A ccTLD, like a domain name, cannot be > conceptualized apart from the services provided by these parties. The > Court cannot order plaintiffs' insertion into this arrangement." > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/order-memo-granting-motion-to-quash-writs-10nov14-en.pdf > > or > > http://tinyurl.com/pmu2trj > > for the decision text, short, 8 pages. > > > -- > -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 -- -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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu Nov 13 09:21:25 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 19:51:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] U.S. Court Quashes Attempts to Attach ccTLDs: Federal Judge Agrees with ICANN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5464BE65.1080508@itforchange.net> The real issue is not just whether a particular US court decided this way or that. The issue is whether the world can have one of its key global resources be subject to the courts of one country, which of course operates that particular country's law, whether or not based on that country's people's will. Is this appropriate? parminder On Thursday 13 November 2014 07:47 AM, McTim wrote: > So ccTLDs aren't property after all.... > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-11-12-en > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 13 09:38:48 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:08:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] U.S. Court Quashes Attempts to Attach ccTLDs: Federal Judge Agrees with ICANN In-Reply-To: <5464BE65.1080508@itforchange.net> References: <5464BE65.1080508@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <149a9979908.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Almost every country in the world has long arm legislation and ex parte powers The Delhi high Court for example issued ex parte orders against some Dutchmen who were tracking an international pill spam operation about a decade back, as they had named an indian pharma firm as the supplier of those drugs, and the firm sued. The criminals in the spam operation were prosecuted in jurisdictions as diverse as new Zealand, the usa and the Netherlands. On November 13, 2014 7:52:21 PM parminder wrote: > The real issue is not just whether a particular US court decided this > way or that. The issue is whether the world can have one of its key > global resources be subject to the courts of one country, which of > course operates that particular country's law, whether or not based on > that country's people's will. Is this appropriate? > > parminder > > > On Thursday 13 November 2014 07:47 AM, McTim wrote: > > So ccTLDs aren't property after all.... > > > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-11-12-en > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > > > McTim > > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Nov 13 11:15:25 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:15:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] U.S. Court Quashes Attempts to Attach ccTLDs: Federal Judge Agrees with ICANN In-Reply-To: <149a9979908.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <5464BE65.1080508@itforchange.net> <149a9979908.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Who did, not so long ago, expressed concerns about silly comments? - Remember my comment about the fact that WK - an ICANN member - self-nominated himself to represent European civil society at the "NMI" where ICANN, the WEF and CGI.br have already attributed themselves seats? Suresh, on this one you deserve a palm! Congrats. All countries have long arms and ex parte powers, so let's the US use its owns over the planet and every citizen whatever its citizenry is - he will have to use its own long arm and ex parte powers to survive any US outrage. Joli programme. Le 13 nov. 2014 à 15:38, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > Almost every country in the world has long arm legislation and ex parte powers > > The Delhi high Court for example issued ex parte orders against some Dutchmen who were tracking an international pill spam operation about a decade back, as they had named an indian pharma firm as the supplier of those drugs, and the firm sued. > > The criminals in the spam operation were prosecuted in jurisdictions as diverse as new Zealand, the usa and the Netherlands. > On November 13, 2014 7:52:21 PM parminder wrote: > >> >> The real issue is not just whether a particular US court decided this way or that. The issue is whether the world can have one of its key global resources be subject to the courts of one country, which of course operates that particular country's law, whether or not based on that country's people's will. Is this appropriate? >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Thursday 13 November 2014 07:47 AM, McTim wrote: >>> So ccTLDs aren't property after all.... >>> >>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-11-12-en >>> >>> -- >>> Cheers, >>> >>> McTim >>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 13 11:23:03 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:53:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] U.S. Court Quashes Attempts to Attach ccTLDs: Federal Judge Agrees with ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <5464BE65.1080508@itforchange.net> <149a9979908.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <149a9f70aa0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> He indicated that he would stand for election, a concept that might not be unknown in France. On November 13, 2014 9:46:30 PM Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Who did, not so long ago, expressed concerns about silly comments? - > Remember my comment about the fact that WK - an ICANN member - > self-nominated himself to represent European civil society at the "NMI" > where ICANN, the WEF and CGI.br have already attributed themselves seats? > > Suresh, on this one you deserve a palm! Congrats. All countries have long > arms and ex parte powers, so let's the US use its owns over the planet and > every citizen whatever its citizenry is - he will have to use its own long > arm and ex parte powers to survive any US outrage. Joli programme. > > > > > > Le 13 nov. 2014 à 15:38, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > > > Almost every country in the world has long arm legislation and ex parte > powers > > > > The Delhi high Court for example issued ex parte orders against some > Dutchmen who were tracking an international pill spam operation about a > decade back, as they had named an indian pharma firm as the supplier of > those drugs, and the firm sued. > > > > The criminals in the spam operation were prosecuted in jurisdictions as > diverse as new Zealand, the usa and the Netherlands. > > On November 13, 2014 7:52:21 PM parminder wrote: > > > >> > >> The real issue is not just whether a particular US court decided this > way or that. The issue is whether the world can have one of its key global > resources be subject to the courts of one country, which of course operates > that particular country's law, whether or not based on that country's > people's will. Is this appropriate? > >> > >> parminder > >> > >> > >> On Thursday 13 November 2014 07:47 AM, McTim wrote: > >>> So ccTLDs aren't property after all.... > >>> > >>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-11-12-en > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> McTim > >>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Thu Nov 13 12:01:36 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:01:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] U.S. Court Quashes Attempts to Attach ccTLDs: Federal Judge Agrees with ICANN In-Reply-To: <149a9f70aa0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <5464BE65.1080508@itforchange.net> <149a9979908.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <149a9f70aa0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Of course, as everybody knows, the French did their Revolution in the US, but had no idea what a vote was all about. How many participants ICANN needs to get into that new temple of MS? WK, who certainly knows better than the French according to you, what are vote and democracy, should have thought about the fact that ICANN was already represented (with no vote of course). Regarding the election process you are referring to, could you please elaborate and provide more details about this vote. You know, the French... even the ones living in Switzerland, the land of direct democracy... Le 13 nov. 2014 à 17:23, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > He indicated that he would stand for election, a concept that might not be unknown in France. > > On November 13, 2014 9:46:30 PM Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > >> Who did, not so long ago, expressed concerns about silly comments? - Remember my comment about the fact that WK - an ICANN member - self-nominated himself to represent European civil society at the "NMI" where ICANN, the WEF and CGI.br have already attributed themselves seats? >> >> Suresh, on this one you deserve a palm! Congrats. All countries have long arms and ex parte powers, so let's the US use its owns over the planet and every citizen whatever its citizenry is - he will have to use its own long arm and ex parte powers to survive any US outrage. Joli programme. >> >> >> >> >> >> Le 13 nov. 2014 à 15:38, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : >> >>> Almost every country in the world has long arm legislation and ex parte powers >>> >>> The Delhi high Court for example issued ex parte orders against some Dutchmen who were tracking an international pill spam operation about a decade back, as they had named an indian pharma firm as the supplier of those drugs, and the firm sued. >>> >>> The criminals in the spam operation were prosecuted in jurisdictions as diverse as new Zealand, the usa and the Netherlands. >>> On November 13, 2014 7:52:21 PM parminder wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> The real issue is not just whether a particular US court decided this way or that. The issue is whether the world can have one of its key global resources be subject to the courts of one country, which of course operates that particular country's law, whether or not based on that country's people's will. Is this appropriate? >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday 13 November 2014 07:47 AM, McTim wrote: >>>>> So ccTLDs aren't property after all.... >>>>> >>>>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-11-12-en >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> McTim >>>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Nov 13 14:22:17 2014 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 13:22:17 -0600 Subject: [governance] 2015 MAG Message-ID: Many thanks to outgoing CS MAG members. The first MAG meeting in December will be very important for the new CS members of the MAG. As an incoming MAG member I hope you will all be vocal in letting me/us know what positions we should emphasise for IGF2015, in particular for attending the issues of highest importance for LAC. I/we count on your input and expertise. I hope to be active in remote participation, and hope many of those who cannot be at the meetings will join online to make sure we raise the appropriate CS issues. I look forward to the challenge and the opportunity. Cheers, Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *Application deadline approaching: * Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance option http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD * ** * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr Fri Nov 14 03:53:21 2014 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 08:53:21 +0000 Subject: [governance] 2015 MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1415955201.81541.YahooMailIosMobile@web28703.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 14 03:54:06 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:54:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] CS @ MAG & IGF /WSIS+10 meetings in Geneva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com> Hi Adding the governance list. To Ginger’s point: First, please not that tomorrow 15 November is the last day to do online registration for the IGF open consultation and MAG meeting. After that, getting in may require you to arm wrestle the ITU’s praetorian guard. https://intgovforum.org/cms/index.php?option=com_jevents&task=icalrepeat.detail&evid=30&Itemid=28&year=2014&month=12&day=01&title=igf-open-consultations-and-mag-meeting&uid=0f4d62692449d836cd076da879ff1f11 Second, Lea has suggested that retiring and incoming CS MAG members get together for some updating and brainstorming on the current state of play in MAG. I think this would be a really good idea, as it has often been difficult in recent years to get the CS contingent to strategically collaborate, and we have an opportunity to reboot efforts here. This would be particularly important with respect to this meeting, which should significantly impact whether the IGF takes seriously the NETmundial mandate with regard to strengthening the process: Improvements should include inter-alia: a. Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including creative ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of policy options; b. Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the IGF, including through a broadened donor base, is essential; d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide discussions between meetings through intersessional dialogues. A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both long standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the identification of possible ways to address them. Some of these were key objectives that the IGC promoted since 2005 before interest in the IGF dissipated a bit in recent years. Now with the NM statement as a platform there’s never been a better time to push to make the IGF a bit more focused, useful, and hopefully able to draw back into discussion more developing country government participants. However it will not be easy as there are well organized forces who’d oppose any changes that make the IGF more than a talk shop, and the chair is, to put it mildly, rather cautious. Hence the current draft agenda for the MAG meeting relegates intersessional work and improved outcomes to being just one of four topics covered in a three hour session, not a promising start. I noted that would not be enough time, and received the zen response that we have the time we have (much of which is in fact underprogrammed). So if CS cares to push for a more focused discussion and an action-oriented IGF, this would require coordination. I believe some people will be arriving arriving the previous week, as the CSTD intersessional http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=610 is currently scheduled to take up the IG mapping exercise and WSIS+10 issues the afternoon of Thursday 27 November and all day Friday 28th. Monday 1 Dec is the IGF open consultation, 2-3 Tues-Wed is the open MAG meeting. I’ve created a Doodle poll to see who will be around when and whether we might get be able to together for some strategizing regarding these important meetings. http://doodle.com/g8kg32fxwxcehnab#table Best Bill PS: WSIS+10 Mavens might want to check out the new SG report, http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/CSTD_2014_wsis10review_report_en.pdf > On Nov 13, 2014, at 8:16 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Hi everyone, > As a new CS member of the MAG, I hope you will all be vocal in letting me/us know what positions we should emphasise for IGF2015, in particular for attending the issues of highest importance for LAC. I/we count on your input and expertise. I like Carolina's idea of a hangout or other meeting to discuss priorities and strategies before the December open consultations and MAG meeting. > Cheers, > Ginger > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > Application deadline approaching: Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance option http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD > *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr Fri Nov 14 04:28:32 2014 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:28:32 +0000 Subject: [governance] CS @ MAG & IGF /WSIS+10 meetings in Geneva In-Reply-To: <1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1415957312.17759.YahooMailIosMobile@web28703.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de Fri Nov 14 04:33:50 2014 From: sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de (sandra hoferichter) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 10:33:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] EuroDIG call for proposals now open until 31 Dec. 2015 Message-ID: <004e01cfffee$1a2d27e0$4e8777a0$@hoferichter@freenet.de> *We apologise for cross posting* If you haven't received the last EuroDIG info letter please subscribe to our mailing list and visit the new EuroDIG website cid:4D7E4731.09B495E6.00000002 Information letter No. 7/14 1. Call for proposals now open With some delay the call for proposals is now open and is a core element of EuroDIG's inclusiveness and bottom-up process. Everybody is invited to submit proposals on topics and issues to contribute to EuroDIG's 2015 agenda setting until 31st of December this year. Please use the online submission form available at www.eurodig.org. The EuroDIG core team is always seeking to improve and simplify participation at EuroDIG. After evaluating our previous events, the clustering of themes in our previous compilation of proposals has always been a challenge. The core team decided to try a slightly different approach for this year: In addition to freely propose any topic that you would like to see discussed, you can also propose a topic that might fit in one of the key topics we propose to you. We hope that this new approach might facilitate the task of the programme team to better structure the incoming proposals into a programme schedule. Suggested key topics: 1. Accessibility (Equality / Digital divide) 2. Internationalised Domain Names 3. Human Rights 4. Security 5. Innovation and economy development 6. Other According to discussions in the core team, these key topics may reflect some of the specific challenges and areas of interest to stakeholders also in South-Eastern European countries. 2. New website We start the 2015 EuroDIG process with a new website. Our aim is to provide clear guidance through the EuroDIG participation process and allow everybody to get involved at any time. The website is work in progress. We are still working on some modules and this process will be finalised by the end of the year. Let us know how you like it! 3. Save the date -Public planning meeting on 27 January 2015 in Sofia It is a tradition that the broader European community meets the local community of the host country at the beginning of each year, agrees on the overarching theme and set the scene for the EuroDIG programme of the upcoming year. You can participate personally or remotely. Precise meeting details and agenda will be published timely on the website. 4. South Eastern European round table We would like to take the next EuroDIG in Bulgaria as an opportunity to better involve participants from South Eastern European countries and are planning a roundtable discussion the day before EuroDIG on 3 June 2015. Please fix the date in your calendar and let us know whether you like to contribute to this event. Of course, such a round table needs a significant number of stakeholders from these regions and we are trying hard to raise travel funds. Please contact the EuroDIG secretariat if you see opportunities to raise travel funds. Thanks for your ideas and precious contributions! The EuroDIG team Unsubscribe from the news letter here _____ European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG) office at eurodig.org www.eurodig.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 19555 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri Nov 14 05:49:52 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 12:49:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] CS @ MAG & IGF /WSIS+10 meetings in Geneva In-Reply-To: <1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com> References: <1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5465DE50.9070003@apc.org> Very good idea to have a meeting Bill. I have responded to your Doodle poll. Also copying Aida Mahmutovic from One World South East Europe and John Dada from Fantsuam Foundation and Jac sm Kee who are also new on the MAG. Anriette On 14/11/2014 10:54, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Adding the governance list. > > To Ginger’s point: First, please not that tomorrow 15 November is the > last day to do online registration for the IGF open consultation and > MAG meeting. After that, getting in may require you to arm wrestle > the ITU’s praetorian guard. > https://intgovforum.org/cms/index.php?option=com_jevents&task=icalrepeat.detail&evid=30&Itemid=28&year=2014&month=12&day=01&title=igf-open-consultations-and-mag-meeting&uid=0f4d62692449d836cd076da879ff1f11 > > Second, Lea has suggested that retiring and incoming CS MAG members > get together for some updating and brainstorming on the current state > of play in MAG. I think this would be a really good idea, as it has > often been difficult in recent years to get the CS contingent to > strategically collaborate, and we have an opportunity to reboot > efforts here. This would be particularly important with respect to > this meeting, which should significantly impact whether the IGF takes > seriously the NETmundial mandate with regard to strengthening the process: > > /Improvements should include inter-alia: > a. Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including > creative ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis > of policy options; > b. Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; > c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the IGF, > including through a broadened donor base, is essential; > d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide discussions > between meetings through intersessional dialogues. > A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing > both long standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to > the identification of possible ways to address them./ > > Some of these were key objectives that the IGC promoted since 2005 > before interest in the IGF dissipated a bit in recent years. Now with > the NM statement as a platform there’s never been a better time to > push to make the IGF a bit more focused, useful, and hopefully able to > draw back into discussion more developing country government > participants. However it will not be easy as there are well organized > forces who’d oppose any changes that make the IGF more than a talk > shop, and the chair is, to put it mildly, rather cautious. Hence the > current draft agenda for the MAG meeting relegates intersessional work > and improved outcomes to being just one of four topics covered in a > three hour session, not a promising start. I noted that would not be > enough time, and received the zen response that we have the time we > have (much of which is in fact underprogrammed). So if CS cares to > push for a more focused discussion and an action-oriented IGF, this > would require coordination. > > I believe some people will be arriving arriving the previous week, as > the CSTD intersessional > http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=610 is > currently scheduled to take up the IG mapping exercise and WSIS+10 > issues the afternoon of Thursday 27 November and all day Friday 28th. > Monday 1 Dec is the IGF open consultation, 2-3 Tues-Wed is the open > MAG meeting. > > I’ve created a Doodle poll to see who will be around when and whether > we might get be able to together for some strategizing regarding these > important meetings. > > http://doodle.com/g8kg32fxwxcehnab#table > > Best > > Bill > > PS: WSIS+10 Mavens might want to check out the new SG report, > http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/CSTD_2014_wsis10review_report_en.pdf > > > >> On Nov 13, 2014, at 8:16 PM, Ginger Paque > > wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> As a new CS member of the MAG, I hope you will all be vocal in >> letting me/us know what positions we should emphasise for IGF2015, in >> particular for attending the issues of highest importance for LAC. >> I/we count on your input and expertise. I like Carolina's idea of a >> hangout or other meeting to discuss priorities and strategies before >> the December open consultations and MAG meeting. >> Cheers, >> Ginger >> >> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation >> >> /Application deadline approaching: / Master/PGD in Contemporary >> Diplomacy with Internet Governance option >> http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD >> >> //// >> >> *//* > > *********************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch > (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com > (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- ````````````````````````````````` anriette esterhuysen executive director association for progressive communications po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa anriette at apc.org www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ahmed22digital at gmail.com Fri Nov 14 06:21:28 2014 From: ahmed22digital at gmail.com (ahmed eisa) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 14:21:28 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] CS @ MAG & IGF /WSIS+10 meetings in Geneva In-Reply-To: <5465DE50.9070003@apc.org> References: <1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com> <5465DE50.9070003@apc.org> Message-ID: dear friends i might be geneva @UNCTAD at that time any possibility i can attend the meeting of the wsis Ahmed Mahmoud Mohamed Eisa +249123031155 Sudani +249912331155 Zain +249999331155 MTN KHARTOUM alamaraat P.O.BOX 15021 post code 12217 http://www.gedaref.com/ Gedaref digital city organization (GDCO) is a nongovernmental and nonprofit organization (Gedaref Sudan), it is part of the Telecentres movement where ICT is used for community development. GDCO is the winner of information for development award (i4d 2007 awards e-India) for the inclusion of the disabled, GDCO is the winner of i4d 2008 awards for the best innovations at the grassroots Telecentres and the winner of i4d 2009 for the initiatives of civil society for development (e-agriculture project and other e-services).. ..it is the winner of eWorld award 2011. it is the winner of best innovative NGO working on ICT for community development in Sudan. The winner of best album in Telecentre 2011 Philippines .. it the founder of the first Telecentre academy in Africa and middle east and the thirteen in world ..The Digital City of Eindhoven (DSE) Netherlands (the founder and well-known partner of GDCO in Netherlands) donated 750 computers and more than ten projects were established using ICT for community development and one of them is e-agriculture. GDCO & SPEG (foundation of eindhoven volunteers for gedaref projects) started new partnership for community development including people with disability (especially deaf), gedaref university, (faculty of medicine) e-agriculture, SeVO and other project On 14 November 2014 13:49, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Very good idea to have a meeting Bill. I have responded to your Doodle > poll. > > Also copying Aida Mahmutovic from One World South East Europe and John > Dada from Fantsuam Foundation and Jac sm Kee who are also new on the MAG. > > Anriette > > On 14/11/2014 10:54, William Drake wrote: > > Hi > > Adding the governance list. > > To Ginger’s point: First, please not that tomorrow 15 November is the > last day to do online registration for the IGF open consultation and MAG > meeting. After that, getting in may require you to arm wrestle the ITU’s > praetorian guard. > > https://intgovforum.org/cms/index.php?option=com_jevents&task=icalrepeat.detail&evid=30&Itemid=28&year=2014&month=12&day=01&title=igf-open-consultations-and-mag-meeting&uid=0f4d62692449d836cd076da879ff1f11 > > > Second, Lea has suggested that retiring and incoming CS MAG members get > together for some updating and brainstorming on the current state of play > in MAG. I think this would be a really good idea, as it has often been > difficult in recent years to get the CS contingent to strategically > collaborate, and we have an opportunity to reboot efforts here. This would > be particularly important with respect to this meeting, which should > significantly impact whether the IGF takes seriously the NETmundial mandate > with regard to strengthening the process: > > > > > > > *Improvements should include inter-alia: a. Improved outcomes: > Improvements can be implemented including creative ways of providing > outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of policy options; b. Extending > the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and > predictable funding for the IGF, including through a broadened donor base, > is essential; d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide > discussions between meetings through intersessional dialogues. > A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both > long standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the > identification of possible ways to address them.* > > Some of these were key objectives that the IGC promoted since 2005 > before interest in the IGF dissipated a bit in recent years. Now with the > NM statement as a platform there’s never been a better time to push to make > the IGF a bit more focused, useful, and hopefully able to draw back into > discussion more developing country government participants. However it > will not be easy as there are well organized forces who’d oppose any > changes that make the IGF more than a talk shop, and the chair is, to put > it mildly, rather cautious. Hence the current draft agenda for the MAG > meeting relegates intersessional work and improved outcomes to being just > one of four topics covered in a three hour session, not a promising start. > I noted that would not be enough time, and received the zen response that > we have the time we have (much of which is in fact underprogrammed). So if > CS cares to push for a more focused discussion and an action-oriented IGF, > this would require coordination. > > I believe some people will be arriving arriving the previous week, as > the CSTD intersessional > http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=610 is > currently scheduled to take up the IG mapping exercise and WSIS+10 issues > the afternoon of Thursday 27 November and all day Friday 28th. Monday 1 > Dec is the IGF open consultation, 2-3 Tues-Wed is the open MAG meeting. > > I’ve created a Doodle poll to see who will be around when and whether we > might get be able to together for some strategizing regarding these > important meetings. > > http://doodle.com/g8kg32fxwxcehnab#table > > Best > > Bill > > PS: WSIS+10 Mavens might want to check out the new SG report, > http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/CSTD_2014_wsis10review_report_en.pdf > > > > On Nov 13, 2014, at 8:16 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Hi everyone, > As a new CS member of the MAG, I hope you will all be vocal in letting > me/us know what positions we should emphasise for IGF2015, in particular > for attending the issues of highest importance for LAC. I/we count on your > input and expertise. I like Carolina's idea of a hangout or other meeting > to discuss priorities and strategies before the December open consultations > and MAG meeting. > Cheers, > Ginger > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > *Application deadline approaching: * Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy > with Internet Governance option http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD > > * * > > > *********************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -- > ````````````````````````````````` > anriette esterhuysen > executive director > association for progressive communications > po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Fri Nov 14 07:58:04 2014 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 13:58:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] CS @ MAG & IGF /WSIS+10 meetings in Geneva In-Reply-To: <1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com> References: <1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com> Message-ID: hello all, The information given by William were interesting and edifying. In my opinion, it is necessary that both the regional and global IGF national level, continental must include in their programs of activities a specific section on preparations for the IGF next year. This implies that each nationality IGF, regional and continental a rapid assessment is made to gather the concerns of all stakeholders in the form of recommendations. I think at the stage where we are, it would make sense that we resume the form of the preparatory meetings and improve the formula REFERRING to the following: *a. Improved results: Improvements can be implemented, including creative ways to deliver results / recommendations and analysis of policy options; b. Extending the mandate of the IGF beyond the five-year terms; c. Ensure a stable and predictable funding guaranteed for the IGF, including through a broader base of donors, is essential; d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote exchanges between meetings worldwide through dialogue sessions.* NM has given a new impetus to the IGF but it also drew new perspectives on the issues and challenges not only Internet applications but also its use by users according to their area of responsibility. Do not lose sight of that with the exponential growth of digital technology which has the axis of rotation the "internet", new threats are emerging that the international community must take all responsibility. There are new powers have emerged and continue to emerge through the facilities offered by digital technology. Baudouin 2014-11-14 9:54 GMT+01:00 William Drake : > Hi > > Adding the governance list. > > To Ginger’s point: First, please not that tomorrow 15 November is the last > day to do online registration for the IGF open consultation and MAG > meeting. After that, getting in may require you to arm wrestle the ITU’s > praetorian guard. > > https://intgovforum.org/cms/index.php?option=com_jevents&task=icalrepeat.detail&evid=30&Itemid=28&year=2014&month=12&day=01&title=igf-open-consultations-and-mag-meeting&uid=0f4d62692449d836cd076da879ff1f11 > > > Second, Lea has suggested that retiring and incoming CS MAG members get > together for some updating and brainstorming on the current state of play > in MAG. I think this would be a really good idea, as it has often been > difficult in recent years to get the CS contingent to strategically > collaborate, and we have an opportunity to reboot efforts here. This would > be particularly important with respect to this meeting, which should > significantly impact whether the IGF takes seriously the NETmundial mandate > with regard to strengthening the process: > > > > > > > *Improvements should include inter-alia:a. Improved outcomes: Improvements > can be implemented including creative ways of providing > outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of policy options;b. Extending > the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms;c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and > predictable funding for the IGF, including through a broadened donor base, > is essential;d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide > discussions between meetings through intersessional dialogues. > A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both > long standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the > identification of possible ways to address them.* > > Some of these were key objectives that the IGC promoted since 2005 before > interest in the IGF dissipated a bit in recent years. Now with the NM > statement as a platform there’s never been a better time to push to make > the IGF a bit more focused, useful, and hopefully able to draw back into > discussion more developing country government participants. However it > will not be easy as there are well organized forces who’d oppose any > changes that make the IGF more than a talk shop, and the chair is, to put > it mildly, rather cautious. Hence the current draft agenda for the MAG > meeting relegates intersessional work and improved outcomes to being just > one of four topics covered in a three hour session, not a promising start. > I noted that would not be enough time, and received the zen response that > we have the time we have (much of which is in fact underprogrammed). So if > CS cares to push for a more focused discussion and an action-oriented IGF, > this would require coordination. > > I believe some people will be arriving arriving the previous week, as the > CSTD intersessional > http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=610 is > currently scheduled to take up the IG mapping exercise and WSIS+10 issues > the afternoon of Thursday 27 November and all day Friday 28th. Monday 1 > Dec is the IGF open consultation, 2-3 Tues-Wed is the open MAG meeting. > > I’ve created a Doodle poll to see who will be around when and whether we > might get be able to together for some strategizing regarding these > important meetings. > > http://doodle.com/g8kg32fxwxcehnab#table > > Best > > Bill > > PS: WSIS+10 Mavens might want to check out the new SG report, > http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/CSTD_2014_wsis10review_report_en.pdf > > > > On Nov 13, 2014, at 8:16 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Hi everyone, > As a new CS member of the MAG, I hope you will all be vocal in letting > me/us know what positions we should emphasise for IGF2015, in particular > for attending the issues of highest importance for LAC. I/we count on your > input and expertise. I like Carolina's idea of a hangout or other meeting > to discuss priorities and strategies before the December open consultations > and MAG meeting. > Cheers, > Ginger > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > *Application deadline approaching: * Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy > with Internet Governance option http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD > > * ** * > > > *********************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC* *ICANN/AFRALO Member* *ISOC Member* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Nov 14 08:10:06 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:10:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] New MAG Message-ID: Congratulations to all the MAG members, both the newly elected and those who have been reappointed. All good wishes for a productive year. Deirdre -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Nov 14 08:59:21 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:59:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities Message-ID: Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for these stakeholders in all such groups. Deirdre -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lorena at collaboratory.de Fri Nov 14 09:14:56 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:14:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 Am 14.11.2014 15:00 schrieb "Deirdre Williams" : > Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the > Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people > with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but > she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself > at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the > world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable > relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". > Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability > oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for > these stakeholders in all such groups. > Deirdre > > -- > “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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ggithaiga at hotmail.com Fri Nov 14 09:35:15 2014 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 14:35:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: @DeidreI agree with you. I was there when this appeal was made by Judy and realized it is very easy to be ignorant of this stakeholder group. So yes, we need a dedicated voice from them. From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:59:21 -0400 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] People with disabilities Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake".Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for these stakeholders in all such groups.Deirdre -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de Fri Nov 14 09:58:50 2014 From: sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de (sandra hoferichter) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:58:50 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] EuroDIG call for proposals now open until 31 Dec. 2015 In-Reply-To: <004e01cfffee$1a2d27e0$4e8777a0$@hoferichter@freenet.de> References: <004e01cfffee$1a2d27e0$4e8777a0$@hoferichter@freenet.de> Message-ID: <00a201d0001b$8036dae0$80a490a0$@hoferichter@freenet.de> ..and of course the subject line should read: EuroDIG call for proposals now open until 31 Dec. 2014 (not 2015) Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von sandra hoferichter Gesendet: Freitag, 14. November 2014 10:34 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] EuroDIG call for proposals now open until 31 Dec. 2015 *We apologise for cross posting* If you haven't received the last EuroDIG info letter please subscribe to our mailing list and visit the new EuroDIG website cid:4D7E4731.09B495E6.00000002 Information letter No. 7/14 1. Call for proposals now open With some delay the call for proposals is now open and is a core element of EuroDIG's inclusiveness and bottom-up process. Everybody is invited to submit proposals on topics and issues to contribute to EuroDIG's 2015 agenda setting until 31st of December this year. Please use the online submission form available at www.eurodig.org. The EuroDIG core team is always seeking to improve and simplify participation at EuroDIG. After evaluating our previous events, the clustering of themes in our previous compilation of proposals has always been a challenge. The core team decided to try a slightly different approach for this year: In addition to freely propose any topic that you would like to see discussed, you can also propose a topic that might fit in one of the key topics we propose to you. We hope that this new approach might facilitate the task of the programme team to better structure the incoming proposals into a programme schedule. Suggested key topics: 1. Accessibility (Equality / Digital divide) 2. Internationalised Domain Names 3. Human Rights 4. Security 5. Innovation and economy development 6. Other According to discussions in the core team, these key topics may reflect some of the specific challenges and areas of interest to stakeholders also in South-Eastern European countries. 2. New website We start the 2015 EuroDIG process with a new website. Our aim is to provide clear guidance through the EuroDIG participation process and allow everybody to get involved at any time. The website is work in progress. We are still working on some modules and this process will be finalised by the end of the year. Let us know how you like it! 3. Save the date -Public planning meeting on 27 January 2015 in Sofia It is a tradition that the broader European community meets the local community of the host country at the beginning of each year, agrees on the overarching theme and set the scene for the EuroDIG programme of the upcoming year. You can participate personally or remotely. Precise meeting details and agenda will be published timely on the website. 4. South Eastern European round table We would like to take the next EuroDIG in Bulgaria as an opportunity to better involve participants from South Eastern European countries and are planning a roundtable discussion the day before EuroDIG on 3 June 2015. Please fix the date in your calendar and let us know whether you like to contribute to this event. Of course, such a round table needs a significant number of stakeholders from these regions and we are trying hard to raise travel funds. Please contact the EuroDIG secretariat if you see opportunities to raise travel funds. Thanks for your ideas and precious contributions! The EuroDIG team Unsubscribe from the news letter here _____ European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG) office at eurodig.org www.eurodig.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 19555 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mshears at cdt.org Fri Nov 14 10:14:11 2014 From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:14:11 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] CS @ MAG & IGF /WSIS+10 meetings in Geneva In-Reply-To: <1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com> References: <1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <54661C43.1020004@cdt.org> Bill Great idea thanks! For those who are attending the CSTD meeting, Friday will be key as there will be a full day on WSIS. The report that Bill links to in his mail will also be up for discussion. We should expect some/many of the difficult discussions we witnessed during the WSIS+10 review to resurface on Friday. The report is very fair one and worth a read - but there will be states that will object to it and/or to parts of it. I think it worthwhile that those of us who are attending meet on Thursday to discuss how we can best coordinate our interests. Matthew On 11/14/2014 8:54 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Adding the governance list. > > To Ginger’s point: First, please not that tomorrow 15 November is the > last day to do online registration for the IGF open consultation and > MAG meeting. After that, getting in may require you to arm wrestle > the ITU’s praetorian guard. > https://intgovforum.org/cms/index.php?option=com_jevents&task=icalrepeat.detail&evid=30&Itemid=28&year=2014&month=12&day=01&title=igf-open-consultations-and-mag-meeting&uid=0f4d62692449d836cd076da879ff1f11 > > > Second, Lea has suggested that retiring and incoming CS MAG members > get together for some updating and brainstorming on the current state > of play in MAG. I think this would be a really good idea, as it has > often been difficult in recent years to get the CS contingent to > strategically collaborate, and we have an opportunity to reboot > efforts here. This would be particularly important with respect to > this meeting, which should significantly impact whether the IGF takes > seriously the NETmundial mandate with regard to strengthening the process: > > /Improvements should include inter-alia: > a. Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including > creative ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis > of policy options; > b. Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; > c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the IGF, > including through a broadened donor base, is essential; > d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide discussions > between meetings through intersessional dialogues. > A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing > both long standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to > the identification of possible ways to address them./ > > Some of these were key objectives that the IGC promoted since 2005 > before interest in the IGF dissipated a bit in recent years. Now with > the NM statement as a platform there’s never been a better time to > push to make the IGF a bit more focused, useful, and hopefully able to > draw back into discussion more developing country government > participants. However it will not be easy as there are well organized > forces who’d oppose any changes that make the IGF more than a talk > shop, and the chair is, to put it mildly, rather cautious. Hence the > current draft agenda for the MAG meeting relegates intersessional work > and improved outcomes to being just one of four topics covered in a > three hour session, not a promising start. I noted that would not be > enough time, and received the zen response that we have the time we > have (much of which is in fact underprogrammed). So if CS cares to > push for a more focused discussion and an action-oriented IGF, this > would require coordination. > > I believe some people will be arriving arriving the previous week, as > the CSTD intersessional > http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=610 is > currently scheduled to take up the IG mapping exercise and WSIS+10 > issues the afternoon of Thursday 27 November and all day Friday 28th. > Monday 1 Dec is the IGF open consultation, 2-3 Tues-Wed is the open > MAG meeting. > > I’ve created a Doodle poll to see who will be around when and whether > we might get be able to together for some strategizing regarding these > important meetings. > > http://doodle.com/g8kg32fxwxcehnab#table > > Best > > Bill > > PS: WSIS+10 Mavens might want to check out the new SG report, > http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/CSTD_2014_wsis10review_report_en.pdf > > > >> On Nov 13, 2014, at 8:16 PM, Ginger Paque > > wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> As a new CS member of the MAG, I hope you will all be vocal in >> letting me/us know what positions we should emphasise for IGF2015, in >> particular for attending the issues of highest importance for LAC. >> I/we count on your input and expertise. I like Carolina's idea of a >> hangout or other meeting to discuss priorities and strategies before >> the December open consultations and MAG meeting. >> Cheers, >> Ginger >> >> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation >> >> /Application deadline approaching: / Master/PGD in Contemporary >> Diplomacy with Internet Governance option >> http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD >> >> //// >> >> *//* > > *********************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), > wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears at cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr Fri Nov 14 12:27:46 2014 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 17:27:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1415986066.53649.YahooMailIosMobile@web28706.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ginger at paque.net Fri Nov 14 13:05:32 2014 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 12:05:32 -0600 Subject: [governance] Countdown to the Geneva Internet Conference Message-ID: Hi everyone... The Geneva Internet Platform (GIP) Geneva Internet Conference (GIC) is just a few days away (next week, 17-19 November). The message below includes the latest updates and the conference programme. Speakers include Mr Fadi Chehadé, CEO and President of ICANN, who will deliver the keynote address. The list of speakers is also available below, while full conference details are available at http://giplatform.org/gic Although time zones are always a challenge for those of us attending remotely, you might want to take a close look at the programme and choose a few sessions to join us. If you are in Geneva, plan to attend, and have not yet registered, please do so here . Remote participants are strongly encouraged to register. We will tweet using #IGeneva and #theGIP Cheers, Ginger Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser . Dear colleagues, With only a few days left before the Geneva Internet Conference, let us get back with a few updates. If you have not registered yet, please do so at your earliest convenience at http://giplatform.org/gic On Monday 17 November from 14.00 to 17.00, we will be organising a *pre-conference workshop on Introduction to Internet governance*. If you are interested to participate, please contact Barbara Rosen Jacobson at barbarar at diplomacy.edu On the same day, join us for a* keynote reception speech by Mr Fadi Chehadé*, CEO and President of ICANN from 17.30. On Tuesday 18 November from 10:00 to 11:00, let us highlight the Forum on *One Internet – many policy angles* with Deputy Secretary-General of the ITU, Deputy Director-General of WIPO, Deputy Director-General of the WTO and Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights. See the detailed programme below. *DAY ZERO – 17 November 2014* 14.00 ‒ 17.00 *Introduction to Internet governance* (pre-conference workshop) 17.30 ‒ 19.30 Keynote address by Fadi Chehadé, President and Chief Executive Officer, ICANN Inauguration of *Geneva Digital Landscape IG 360° *followed by* a reception* (WMO Attic) *DAY ONE – 18 November 2014* The Internet governance landscape 09.30 ‒ 10.00 *Welcome and opening remarks* Ruedi Noser, National Counselor, President of ICT Switzerland and the initiators of the Geneva Internet Platform Amb. Jürg Lauber, Head of Division, UN and International Organisations Division, Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs 10.00 ‒ 11.00 *FORUM: One Internet – many policy angles* Malcolm Johnson, Deputy Secretary-General, ITU Christian Wichard, Deputy Director-General, Global Issues Sector, WIPO Yi Xiaozhun, Deputy Director General, WTO Flavia Pansieri, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, OHCHR Preserving one Internet involves different policy processes. More than 50% of global Internet policy is discussed and decided on in Geneva: telecom infrastructure, human rights, e-commerce, digital intellectual property are just a few of the areas. This high-level panel will discuss different policy angles, and ways in which cross-cutting Internet policy can be developed. High officials from the ITU, the WTO, and WIPO will discuss potential synergies among their activities of the relevance for the Internet. 11.00 ‒ 11.30 *Coffee break and conference photo* 11.30 ‒ 13.00 *FORUM: Mapping the Internet governance landscape ‒ actors, processes, and issues* Moderator: Jovan Kurbalija, DiploFoundation and GIP Louis Pouzin, expert in computer communications (one of the fathers of the Internet) William J. Drake, Visiting Professor, University of Zurich Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Member of the ICANN Board of Directors Khaled Fattal, Group Chairman, Multilingual Interne Group, London Internet governance is a highly complex policy space with hundreds of actors addressing more than 50 IG issues through more than 1000 mechanisms (conventions, standards,events, experts groups, etc.). The more Internet impacts all spheres of our life, the more complex and broader Internet governance will become. Very few actors, if any, have a full grasp of the complexity of IG. The risk of incomprehensible IG could lead towards the marginalisation of some actors and, ultimately, a risk for legitimacy of Internet governance. In addition, good mapping of Internet governance will increase the efficiency of policy processes and reduce duplicate efforts in various forums. The session will discuss the challenge of mapping Internet governance and ways and means of making it more accessible to all concerned. The panellists will address the following issues: - What does Internet governance include? - What are the criteria for mapping Internet governance issues and their relevance? - How can we create easier access to Internet governance? - If a one-stop shop is a solution, what functions should it have and how should it be organised? A discussion thread from this session will continue at: - Session ‘Same issues, different perspectives: overcoming policy silos in privacy and data protection’ (18 November 2014: 14.30–16.00) - Forum: How do actors deal with the complexity of Internet governance? (19 November 2014: 09.00–10.30) 13.00 ‒ 14.30 *Lunch break* 14.30 ‒ 16.00 *Same issues, different perspectives: overcoming policy silos in privacy and data protection* Moderator: Vladimir Radunovic, DiploFoundation and GIP Brian Trammell, Internet Engineering TaskForce (IETF) Nick Ashton-Hart, Computer and Communications Industry Association Amb. Thomas Hajnoczi, Permanent Mission of Austria to the United Nations, Geneva Carly Nyst, Privacy International The omnipresence of the Internet in modern society makes most Internet policy issues transversal. For example, cybercrime cannot be addressed only as a security issue or e-commerce only as trade issue. Yet, a transversal approach is more an exception than a common practice in Internet governance. This session will discuss ways and means of introducing a transversal approach using the example of data protection and privacy, addressed from standardisation, human rights, diplomatic, security, and business perspectives. 14.30 ‒ 16.00 *Legal framework, jurisdiction, and enforcement in Internet governance* Moderator: Prof. Jacques de Werra, University of Geneva Prof. Rolf Weber, University of Zurich Prof. Joe Cannataci, University of Groningen Dr Mira Burri, Senior Research Fellow, World Trade Institute, University of Bern Konstantinos Komaitis, Policy Advisor, Internet Society Xianhong Hu, UNESCO The Internet does not function in a legal vacuum. Increasingly, it is perceived that what is (il)legal offline is (il)legal online. The UN Human Rights Council made this principle explicit: ‘The same rights that people have offline must also be protected online.’ Thus, most Internet issues are already regulated in the offline environment (e.g. jurisdiction, copyright, trademark, labour law).The main challenge is how to apply these rules to Internet transactions, particularly in view of transborder aspects and the speed of Internet activities. At the preparatory seminar for the Conference, the idea of legal innovation with wisdom was suggested. It means that there is a need for innovation for the Internet, which should not ignore the wisdom of the legal profession gathered over centuries in regulating conflicts and ensuring order in human society. The session will focus on the following questions: - Is there any area where the ‘offline/online principle’ cannot be applied and there will be a need for new substantive rules for the Internet? - What are the specific challenges for applying existing legal rules on the Internet? - How do we innovate with wisdom? What are the possible innovations? 14.30 ‒ 16.00 *Inclusion in digital policy: e-participation and capacity development* Moderator: Pete Cranston, co-director, Euforic Services, Oxford Chengetai Masango, Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum Ginger Paque, DiploFoundation Anders Norsker, ITU (tbc) Marília Maciel, Center for Technology and Society, FGV Brazil Anne-Rachel Inne, ICANN Inclusive digital policy depends on e-participation and capacity development. E-participation ensures participation of all those who cannot participate in situ. It is not surprising that e-participation in global governance is most advanced in the field of Internet governance. The session will discuss the four most relevant experiences in digital policy: the IGF, ICANN, the ITU, and NETmundial. The session will provide concrete input based on the following questions: - What practical techniques are there for making e-participation more effective? - How can we ensure proper synchronisation between two dynamics of the event: in situ (in the conference room) and remote (via e-participation)? - How do we deal with different time-zones in e-participation? - How do we ensure capacity development for e-participation? 16.00 ‒ 16.30 *Coffee break* 16.30 ‒ 17.30 *Wrap-up and discussion (feedback and synthesis of ideas)* 19.00 ‒ 20.30 *Cocktail dînatoire (Maison de la Paix, Chemin Eugène-Rigot 2)* *DAY TWO – 19 November 2014* The complexity of Internet governance: sustaining innovation while ensuring equality 09.00 ‒ 10.30 *FORUM: How do nations cope with Internet governance complexity?* Hon. Helena Dalli, Minister for Social Dialogue, Consumer Affairs and Civil Liberties, Malta Parminder Jeet Singh, Executive Director, IT for Change, India Marília Maciel, Center for Technology and Society, FGV Brazil Richard Samans, Managing Director and Member of the Managing Board, World Economic Forum With more than 50 Internet policy issues addressed in hundreds of various forums, many actors face difficulties in following Internet governance. Some governments, such as China, the USA, and Germany, have introduced cyber and Internet ambassadors as a way of covering foreign digital policy. Many countries started a national Internet Governance Forum in order to integrate the wider technical, academic, and business communities in Internet policies. For business and technical communities, following IG requires covering non-technical issues such as human rights (e.g. privacy). For civil society, in particular small organisations, covering the IG field is becoming very difficult. At the same time, due to the inter-connection of IG issues, many actors cannot afford not to use a comprehensive approach including technical, legal, and human rights aspects among others. Panellists will present different experiences in covering Internet governance and suggest some practical solutions. The session is planned to end with a list of concrete suggestions that should help various actors to deal with the complexity of IG. 10.30 ‒ 11.00 *Coffee break* 11.00 ‒ 12.30 *Aim for full transparency – accept exceptional translucency* Moderator: Pete Cranston, co-director, Euforic Services, Oxford Veronica Cretu, Open Government Institute (Moldova) Nigel Hickson, Vice-President, ICANN Avri Doria, Principal Researcher, Technicalities Kari Tapiola, ILO Transparency is essential for robust and effective Internet governance. It is particularly important in multistakeholder spaces that typically do not have procedural mechanisms to ensure procedural transparency and due process. While full transparency should be a default operational mode, in some cases a ‘translucent’ approach could be considered (e.g. limited public participation in deliberation with full publicity of results of deliberations). This session will aim to establish criteria for determining the level of transparency needed (e.g. full transparency with transcription, access to documents, etc.). It will rely on experiences from the Open Governance and ILO communities. 11.00 ‒ 12.30 *Subsidiarity: how to make Internet governance decisions at the appropriate level, building on lessons learnt from Switzerland* Moderator: Thomas Schneider, OFCOM Peter Gruetter, Swiss Telecommunications Association Norbert Bollow, co-founder and co-convenor of the Just Net Coalition Michel Veuthey, Vice-president of the International Institute of Humanitarian Law, San Remo Hanane Boujemi, Hivos While global solutions are preferable for global issues (e.g. IG, climate change), they are often difficult to achieve. After the failure of the Copenhagen summit (2009), the climate change community focused more on local, national, and regional initiatives. The same tendencies are noticeable in IG (most cybercrime conventions are regional, protests against IG policies are regional/national – SOPA, ACTA). IG issues should be addressed at the policy level which is closest to the cause of the issues (e.g. cybercrime) or the impact a specific policy may have (e.g. access, net neutrality). The main challenges will be to ensure that ‘policy elevators’ move both ways (up and down) among local,national, regional, and global levels. The session will also discuss the practice of ‘forum shopping’ (inserting policy initiatives on the most favourable policy level). Swiss academics and practitioners will present the country’s long experience in using subsidiarity principles. The panel will address the following specific questions: - What issues could be addressed effectively at a lower level than a global one (e.g. regional and national levels)? - How can we ensure synchronisation among different policy levels while avoiding the risk of ‘forum shopping’? 11.00 ‒ 12.30 *Evidence in Internet governance: measurement and data-mining* Moderator: Vladimir Radunovic, DiploFoundation and GIP Aaron Boyd, Chief Strategy Officer, ABI Research Sacha Wunsch-Vincent, Senior Economist, WIPO Eliot Lear, CISCO Kavé Salamatian, University of Savoie, France Although the Internet is an engineering artifact, we do not have sufficient technical data of relevance for Internet governance. For example, one of the major problems in cybersecurity is the lack of data about threats and losses. Policy-makers and, increasingly a more engaged general public, are looking for data such as: the impact of digital innovation on economic growth; the quantity of digital assets and their distribution worldwide, etc. The session will focus on three main issues: - Mapping of available data and measurement of relevance for IG - Survey of data and measurement for specific issues. - Techniques and approaches to improve evidence and measurement of relevance for IG. 12.30 ‒ 14.00 *Lunch break* 14.00 ‒ 15.30 *Lessons learned from other multistakeholder processes* Moderator: Anne-Marie Buzatu, DCAF Andy Orsmond, International Code of Conduct Association Michel Quillé, Europol Amb. Theodor H. Winkler, Director – DCAF Michele Woods, WIPO The different stakeholder communities remain divided over the legitimate carrying out and enforcement of decisions. Consequently, compliance remains a test case for IG processes. How can we ensure effective implementation and compliance of decisions, in particular those that require the participation of multiple actors with different views on legitimacy and accountability? 14.00 ‒ 15.30 *Drafting in policy processes: how can we best nurture the socialisation of policy texts in multistakeholder contexts?* Moderator: Jovan Kurbalija, DiploFoundation and GIP Richard Hill, Association for Proper Internet Governance Avri Doria, Principal Researcher, Technicalities Alex Sceberras Trigona, Special Envoy of the Prime Minister of Malta and former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Malta One of the fathers of the Internet Jon Postel said ‘Group discussion is very valuable; group drafting is less productive.’ The more people involved, the greater the complexity of the process. The drafting process is not individual writing; it is highly social. Thus, ‘socialisation of the text’ is essential for successful negotiations. All involved should be aware of how the final draft was negotiated, what was included, and what was left out. Participants should know that their voices were heard, considered, and adopted… or not, accordingly. The panellists will address the following questions: - How do we harvest and harness a wide range of inputs in the drafting process? - What types of procedures are needed to ensure that the drafted text can have legitimate acceptance by most actors involved in the process? - How do we deal with conflicting situations in the drafting process? 14.00 ‒ 15.30 *Funding, accountability and trust in Internet governance* Moderator: Pete Cranston, co-director, Euforic Services, Oxford Markus Kummer, Member of the ICANN Board of Directors Désirée Miloshevic, Afilias International Jean-Marie Chenou, University of Lausanne Funding, accountability, and trust are closely inter-related and are necessary for a legitimate governance system. Funding contributes to accountability, which in turn creates more trust in IG space. This session will address various approaches to fundraising in Internet governance. It will also discuss the question of accountability and trust. 15.30 ‒ 16.00 *Coffee break* 16.00 ‒ 17.00 *Closing session: wrap-up and concluding remarks* Philipp Metzger, Director-General, OFCOM Follow us on Twitter | Forward to a friend You're receiving this email because you expressed an interest in Geneva Internet Platform. [image: DiploFoundation] [image: Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 14 14:29:26 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:29:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: <1415986066.53649.YahooMailIosMobile@web28706.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1415986066.53649.YahooMailIosMobile@web28706.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: My message was sent in response to a suggestion from Lorena to have a "youth category". What is needed is a mechanism to ensure that the concerns of people with disabilities are expressed. For the last few years that mechanism was provided (apparently fortuitously) by the presence on the MAG of Judy Okite, (civil society/technical) who is herself disabled and therefore was unlikely to forget the concerns of people with disabilities. It would be good always to have someone on the MAG whose special responsibility was to act as a liaison for the billion people on the planet who live with disability, to remember and to voice their concerns. Deirdre On 14 November 2014 13:27, Arsene TUNGALI wrote: > Hi Deidre, > > I agree with your point, having a separate 'stake' for people with > disabilities. However, you may need to make it clear wether you mean that > we should add a new category to the existing ones (Gov, CS, Business, etc)? > > My stake is that for this specific category, we just make sure they are > represented within the already existing categories. If not, we will face a > situation where we need to consider new categories in the future (youth, > students, children, etc) > > Regards, > A > ------------------ > Arsene Tungali, > Executive Director, Rudi International > www.rudiinternational.org > > Founder, Mabingwa Forum > www.mabingwa-forum.com > Phone:+243993810967 > > ICANN Fellow| ISOC Member| Child Online Protection Advocate| Youth Leader| > Internet Governance. > Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > At 14 nov. 2014 15:59:21, Deirdre Williams<'williams.deirdre at gmail.com'> > wrote: > Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the > Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people > with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but > she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself > at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the > world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable > relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". > Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability > oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for > these stakeholders in all such groups. > Deirdre > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ekenyanito at gmail.com Fri Nov 14 15:07:08 2014 From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 23:07:08 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] CS @ MAG & IGF /WSIS+10 meetings in Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com> <54661C43.1020004@cdt.org> Message-ID: Looking forward to these discussions, please make arrangements for remote participation. -- Best Regards, ​​ *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito* Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito tel: (+254)-786-191-930 / (+254)-751-804-120 @ekenyanito Skype: ekenyanito PGP: E6BA8DC1 On 14 November 2014 20:45, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > I will be around on Friday but unfortunately not the previous days as I'll > be in Ottawa. > > Regards, Nick > > > On 14 Nov 2014, at 16:14, Matthew Shears wrote: > > Bill > > Great idea thanks! > > For those who are attending the CSTD meeting, Friday will be key as there > will be a full day on WSIS. The report that Bill links to in his mail will > also be up for discussion. We should expect some/many of the difficult > discussions we witnessed during the WSIS+10 review to resurface on Friday. > The report is very fair one and worth a read - but there will be states > that will object to it and/or to parts of it. I think it worthwhile that > those of us who are attending meet on Thursday to discuss how we can best > coordinate our interests. > > Matthew > > On 11/14/2014 8:54 AM, William Drake wrote: > > Hi > > Adding the governance list. > > To Ginger’s point: First, please not that tomorrow 15 November is the > last day to do online registration for the IGF open consultation and MAG > meeting. After that, getting in may require you to arm wrestle the ITU’s > praetorian guard. > > https://intgovforum.org/cms/index.php?option=com_jevents&task=icalrepeat.detail&evid=30&Itemid=28&year=2014&month=12&day=01&title=igf-open-consultations-and-mag-meeting&uid=0f4d62692449d836cd076da879ff1f11 > > > Second, Lea has suggested that retiring and incoming CS MAG members get > together for some updating and brainstorming on the current state of play > in MAG. I think this would be a really good idea, as it has often been > difficult in recent years to get the CS contingent to strategically > collaborate, and we have an opportunity to reboot efforts here. This would > be particularly important with respect to this meeting, which should > significantly impact whether the IGF takes seriously the NETmundial mandate > with regard to strengthening the process: > > > > > > > *Improvements should include inter-alia: a. Improved outcomes: > Improvements can be implemented including creative ways of providing > outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of policy options; b. Extending > the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and > predictable funding for the IGF, including through a broadened donor base, > is essential; d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide > discussions between meetings through intersessional dialogues. > A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both > long standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the > identification of possible ways to address them.* > > Some of these were key objectives that the IGC promoted since 2005 > before interest in the IGF dissipated a bit in recent years. Now with the > NM statement as a platform there’s never been a better time to push to make > the IGF a bit more focused, useful, and hopefully able to draw back into > discussion more developing country government participants. However it > will not be easy as there are well organized forces who’d oppose any > changes that make the IGF more than a talk shop, and the chair is, to put > it mildly, rather cautious. Hence the current draft agenda for the MAG > meeting relegates intersessional work and improved outcomes to being just > one of four topics covered in a three hour session, not a promising start. > I noted that would not be enough time, and received the zen response that > we have the time we have (much of which is in fact underprogrammed). So if > CS cares to push for a more focused discussion and an action-oriented IGF, > this would require coordination. > > I believe some people will be arriving arriving the previous week, as > the CSTD intersessional > http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=610 is > currently scheduled to take up the IG mapping exercise and WSIS+10 issues > the afternoon of Thursday 27 November and all day Friday 28th. Monday 1 > Dec is the IGF open consultation, 2-3 Tues-Wed is the open MAG meeting. > > I’ve created a Doodle poll to see who will be around when and whether we > might get be able to together for some strategizing regarding these > important meetings. > > http://doodle.com/g8kg32fxwxcehnab#table > > Best > > Bill > > PS: WSIS+10 Mavens might want to check out the new SG report, > http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/CSTD_2014_wsis10review_report_en.pdf > > > > On Nov 13, 2014, at 8:16 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Hi everyone, > As a new CS member of the MAG, I hope you will all be vocal in letting > me/us know what positions we should emphasise for IGF2015, in particular > for attending the issues of highest importance for LAC. I/we count on your > input and expertise. I like Carolina's idea of a hangout or other meeting > to discuss priorities and strategies before the December open consultations > and MAG meeting. > Cheers, > Ginger > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > *Application deadline approaching: * Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy > with Internet Governance option http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD > > * * > > > *********************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -- > Matthew Shears > Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)mshears at cdt.org > + 44 771 247 2987 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From compsoftnet at gmail.com Fri Nov 14 16:53:09 2014 From: compsoftnet at gmail.com (Akinremi Peter Taiwo) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 22:53:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That's a good suggestion raised by Lorena, there is strong need for disabilities to use and maximize the internet and I strongly see the internet as an avenue to compensate for their loss. The same issue was raised during Netmundia meeting in Brazil but I doubt it weather they really give attention to it. @ Williams and folks, how do u think we can stand and help the disabilities have part in IoT. On Nov 14, 2014 3:00 PM, "Deirdre Williams" wrote: > Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the > Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people > with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but > she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself > at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the > world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable > relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". > Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability > oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for > these stakeholders in all such groups. > Deirdre > > -- > “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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ginger at paque.net Fri Nov 14 19:42:16 2014 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 18:42:16 -0600 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities Message-ID: Judy has done a wonderful job in IG and on the MAG, and I am sure she will continue to help us address issues for persons with disabilities and other topics. The MAG does have another important advocate for persons with disabilities: Peter Major (DCAD Co-Coordinator, Special advisor, Hungarian Mission to the UN, Geneva). I am sure that he, Judy, and the other members of the DCAD (Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability), including De Williams and myself will continue to keep disability and inclusion issues high on the IGF agenda (think remote participation too). I am sure most of you are also familiar with the work of Andrea Saks as well--who is very active in IGF disability issues, with no need to be on the MAG to constantly push for change. While there is no doubt in my mind that disability issues are very important,I have to admit, I am not sure that more mechanisms are the answer. (' What is needed is a mechanism to ensure that the concerns of people with disabilities are expressed.'). I think that the DCAD and the I *SOC* Disabilities and Special Needs *Chapter*, as well as other advocates, do an excellent job of addressing concerns, and that we can all learn from their very practical work--DCAD was instrumental in making transcripts a part of IGF meetings (which is an amazing tool for all of us), and is, for example, a strong support for remote participation, as there is great synergy in tools, resources and concerns about inclusion. I hope we can make sure that all voices are heard, including those of youth and persons with disabilities. It's amazing what we learn from each other, and how we all benefit in the end. Please do help me (as a new MAG member) and the MAG include your concerns in the IGF agendas. Don't forget that each of you can bring your positions directly to the IGF Secretariat through the contributions that are often requested (See* www.intgovforum.org/cms/ **Taking stock of IGF 2014 and looking forward to IGF 2015* -- Stakeholders were invited to submit written contributions taking stock of the Istanbul IGF meeting and looking forward to the IGF 2015 meeting, including suggestions on the format, schedule and themes. The submitted contributions are available and will be synthesized into a paper that will form an input into the Open Consultations and MAG meetings of 1-3 December.) Cheers, Ginger On 14 November 2014 15:53, Akinremi Peter Taiwo wrote: > That's a good suggestion raised by Lorena, there is strong need for > disabilities to use and maximize the internet and I strongly see the > internet as an avenue to compensate for their loss. The same issue was > raised during Netmundia meeting in Brazil but I doubt it weather they > really give attention to it. @ Williams and folks, how do u think we can > stand and help the disabilities have part in IoT. > On Nov 14, 2014 3:00 PM, "Deirdre Williams" > wrote: > >> Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the >> Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people >> with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but >> she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself >> at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the >> world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable >> relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". >> Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability >> oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for >> these stakeholders in all such groups. >> Deirdre >> >> -- >> “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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ahmed22digital at gmail.com Fri Nov 14 19:53:22 2014 From: ahmed22digital at gmail.com (ahmed eisa) Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 03:53:22 +0300 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: People with disability is an important part of the community.. Unfortunately they were not included in the MDGs and this why they have high level meetings in the 68th UN general assembly and our organization was part of it. in addition, most of the 17th suggested sustainable development are speaking about equality. By the time the MAG meetings starts in Geneva from the 1st to the 3rd December, the world will be celebrating the international day of people with disability (3rd December) http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=1620 http://community.telecentre.org/photo/albums/high-level-meeting-on-disability-and-development Ahmed Mahmoud Mohamed Eisa +249123031155 Sudani +249912331155 Zain +249999331155 MTN KHARTOUM alamaraat P.O.BOX 15021 post code 12217 http://www.gedaref.com/ Gedaref digital city organization (GDCO) is a nongovernmental and nonprofit organization (Gedaref Sudan), it is part of the Telecentres movement where ICT is used for community development. GDCO is the winner of information for development award (i4d 2007 awards e-India) for the inclusion of the disabled, GDCO is the winner of i4d 2008 awards for the best innovations at the grassroots Telecentres and the winner of i4d 2009 for the initiatives of civil society for development (e-agriculture project and other e-services).. ..it is the winner of eWorld award 2011. it is the winner of best innovative NGO working on ICT for community development in Sudan. The winner of best album in Telecentre 2011 Philippines .. it the founder of the first Telecentre academy in Africa and middle east and the thirteen in world ..The Digital City of Eindhoven (DSE) Netherlands (the founder and well-known partner of GDCO in Netherlands) donated 750 computers and more than ten projects were established using ICT for community development and one of them is e-agriculture. GDCO & SPEG (foundation of eindhoven volunteers for gedaref projects) started new partnership for community development including people with disability (especially deaf), gedaref university, (faculty of medicine) e-agriculture, SeVO and other project On 15 November 2014 00:53, Akinremi Peter Taiwo wrote: > That's a good suggestion raised by Lorena, there is strong need for > disabilities to use and maximize the internet and I strongly see the > internet as an avenue to compensate for their loss. The same issue was > raised during Netmundia meeting in Brazil but I doubt it weather they > really give attention to it. @ Williams and folks, how do u think we can > stand and help the disabilities have part in IoT. > On Nov 14, 2014 3:00 PM, "Deirdre Williams" > wrote: > >> Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the >> Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people >> with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but >> she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself >> at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the >> world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable >> relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". >> Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability >> oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for >> these stakeholders in all such groups. >> Deirdre >> >> -- >> “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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Nov 14 23:20:25 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 23:20:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <21606.54409.21202.338413@world.std.com> It's profound. For many years, decades actually, we've had a customer who is both deaf and blind. Yet the internet makes the world (no pun intended) available to her. I remember once a support staff member (unwittingly) offered to call her about a question she'd asked and she responded please, don't call! Email only! Really, truly profound. -- -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 ahmed22digital at gmail.com Sat Nov 15 01:02:36 2014 From: ahmed22digital at gmail.com (ahmed eisa) Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 09:02:36 +0300 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: <21606.54409.21202.338413@world.std.com> References: <21606.54409.21202.338413@world.std.com> Message-ID: We have experience in GDCO in training deaf. When we start training we finish the course in 6 months. Later we select three of them as trainer and we succeeded in training their friends in 20 days. They start to communicate through emails and video chatting instead of the sign language. We use those trained deaf to raise the awareness and easiness of the internet and they go to internet cafes to practice and this sent a message to the community that accessing the internet is not difficult the number of internet café increased from 5 to 15 in less than a year,,, they are really very smart. Ahmed Mahmoud Mohamed Eisa +249123031155 Sudani +249912331155 Zain +249999331155 MTN KHARTOUM alamaraat P.O.BOX 15021 post code 12217 http://www.gedaref.com/ Gedaref digital city organization (GDCO) is a nongovernmental and nonprofit organization (Gedaref Sudan), it is part of the Telecentres movement where ICT is used for community development. GDCO is the winner of information for development award (i4d 2007 awards e-India) for the inclusion of the disabled, GDCO is the winner of i4d 2008 awards for the best innovations at the grassroots Telecentres and the winner of i4d 2009 for the initiatives of civil society for development (e-agriculture project and other e-services).. ..it is the winner of eWorld award 2011. it is the winner of best innovative NGO working on ICT for community development in Sudan. The winner of best album in Telecentre 2011 Philippines .. it the founder of the first Telecentre academy in Africa and middle east and the thirteen in world ..The Digital City of Eindhoven (DSE) Netherlands (the founder and well-known partner of GDCO in Netherlands) donated 750 computers and more than ten projects were established using ICT for community development and one of them is e-agriculture. GDCO & SPEG (foundation of eindhoven volunteers for gedaref projects) started new partnership for community development including people with disability (especially deaf), gedaref university, (faculty of medicine) e-agriculture, SeVO and other project On 15 November 2014 07:20, Barry Shein wrote: > > It's profound. For many years, decades actually, we've had a customer > who is both deaf and blind. Yet the internet makes the world (no pun > intended) available to her. I remember once a support staff member > (unwittingly) offered to call her about a question she'd asked and she > responded please, don't call! Email only! Really, truly profound. > > -- > -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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ahmed22digital at gmail.com Sat Nov 15 02:10:01 2014 From: ahmed22digital at gmail.com (ahmed eisa) Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:10:01 +0300 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: <21606.54409.21202.338413@world.std.com> Message-ID: http://www.un.org/en/ga/68/meetings/disability/ Ahmed Mahmoud Mohamed Eisa +249123031155 Sudani +249912331155 Zain +249999331155 MTN KHARTOUM alamaraat P.O.BOX 15021 post code 12217 http://www.gedaref.com/ Gedaref digital city organization (GDCO) is a nongovernmental and nonprofit organization (Gedaref Sudan), it is part of the Telecentres movement where ICT is used for community development. GDCO is the winner of information for development award (i4d 2007 awards e-India) for the inclusion of the disabled, GDCO is the winner of i4d 2008 awards for the best innovations at the grassroots Telecentres and the winner of i4d 2009 for the initiatives of civil society for development (e-agriculture project and other e-services).. ..it is the winner of eWorld award 2011. it is the winner of best innovative NGO working on ICT for community development in Sudan. The winner of best album in Telecentre 2011 Philippines .. it the founder of the first Telecentre academy in Africa and middle east and the thirteen in world ..The Digital City of Eindhoven (DSE) Netherlands (the founder and well-known partner of GDCO in Netherlands) donated 750 computers and more than ten projects were established using ICT for community development and one of them is e-agriculture. GDCO & SPEG (foundation of eindhoven volunteers for gedaref projects) started new partnership for community development including people with disability (especially deaf), gedaref university, (faculty of medicine) e-agriculture, SeVO and other project On 15 November 2014 09:02, ahmed eisa wrote: > We have experience in GDCO in training deaf. When we start training we > finish the course in 6 months. Later we select three of them as trainer and > we succeeded in training their friends in 20 days. They start to > communicate through emails and video chatting instead of the sign language. > We use those trained deaf to raise the awareness and easiness of the > internet and they go to internet cafes to practice and this sent a message > to the community that accessing the internet is not difficult the number of > internet café increased from 5 to 15 in less than a year,,, they are really > very smart. > > Ahmed Mahmoud Mohamed Eisa > +249123031155 Sudani > > +249912331155 Zain > > +249999331155 MTN > KHARTOUM alamaraat P.O.BOX 15021 > > post code 12217 > > > http://www.gedaref.com/ > > > Gedaref digital city organization (GDCO) is a nongovernmental and > nonprofit organization (Gedaref Sudan), it is part of the Telecentres > movement where ICT is used for community development. GDCO is the winner > of information for development award (i4d 2007 awards e-India) for the > inclusion of the disabled, GDCO is the winner of i4d 2008 awards for the > best innovations at the grassroots Telecentres and the winner of i4d 2009 > for the initiatives of civil society for development (e-agriculture project > and other e-services).. ..it is the winner of eWorld award 2011. it is the > winner of best innovative NGO working on ICT for community development in > Sudan. The winner of best album in Telecentre 2011 Philippines .. it the > founder of the first Telecentre academy in Africa and middle east and the > thirteen in world ..The Digital City of Eindhoven (DSE) Netherlands (the > founder and well-known partner of GDCO in Netherlands) donated 750 > computers and more than ten projects were established using ICT for > community development and one of them is e-agriculture. GDCO & SPEG > (foundation of eindhoven volunteers for gedaref projects) started new > partnership for community development including people with disability > (especially deaf), gedaref university, (faculty of medicine) e-agriculture, > SeVO and other project > > > > On 15 November 2014 07:20, Barry Shein wrote: > >> >> It's profound. For many years, decades actually, we've had a customer >> who is both deaf and blind. Yet the internet makes the world (no pun >> intended) available to her. I remember once a support staff member >> (unwittingly) offered to call her about a question she'd asked and she >> responded please, don't call! Email only! Really, truly profound. >> >> -- >> -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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 16 20:04:21 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 21:04:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oops! I should have been more careful to remind people that the context of this thread was the MAG. The "mechanism" referred to a means of including a voice for people with disabilities as a permanent component of the MAG and wasn't intended in any way to question the value of the great work that is being done by DCAD. Deirdre Judy has done a wonderful job in IG and on the MAG, and I am sure she will continue to help us address issues for persons with disabilities and other topics. The MAG does have another important advocate for persons with disabilities: Peter Major (DCAD Co-Coordinator, Special advisor, Hungarian Mission to the UN, Geneva). I am sure that he, Judy, and the other members of the DCAD (Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability), including De Williams and myself will continue to keep disability and inclusion issues high on the IGF agenda (think remote participation too). I am sure most of you are also familiar with the work of Andrea Saks as well--who is very active in IGF disability issues, with no need to be on the MAG to constantly push for change. While there is no doubt in my mind that disability issues are very important,I have to admit, I am not sure that more mechanisms are the answer. (' What is needed is a mechanism to ensure that the concerns of people with disabilities are expressed.'). I think that the DCAD and the I *SOC* Disabilities and Special Needs *Chapter*, as well as other advocates, do an excellent job of addressing concerns, and that we can all learn from their very practical work--DCAD was instrumental in making transcripts a part of IGF meetings (which is an amazing tool for all of us), and is, for example, a strong support for remote participation, as there is great synergy in tools, resources and concerns about inclusion. I hope we can make sure that all voices are heard, including those of youth and persons with disabilities. It's amazing what we learn from each other, and how we all benefit in the end. Please do help me (as a new MAG member) and the MAG include your concerns in the IGF agendas. Don't forget that each of you can bring your positions directly to the IGF Secretariat through the contributions that are often requested (See* www.intgovforum.org/cms/ **Taking stock of IGF 2014 and looking forward to IGF 2015* -- Stakeholders were invited to submit written contributions taking stock of the Istanbul IGF meeting and looking forward to the IGF 2015 meeting, including suggestions on the format, schedule and themes. The submitted contributions are available and will be synthesized into a paper that will form an input into the Open Consultations and MAG meetings of 1-3 December.) Cheers, Ginger On 14 November 2014 15:53, Akinremi Peter Taiwo wrote: > That's a good suggestion raised by Lorena, there is strong need for > disabilities to use and maximize the internet and I strongly see the > internet as an avenue to compensate for their loss. The same issue was > raised during Netmundia meeting in Brazil but I doubt it weather they > really give attention to it. @ Williams and folks, how do u think we can > stand and help the disabilities have part in IoT. > On Nov 14, 2014 3:00 PM, "Deirdre Williams" > wrote: > >> Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the >> Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people >> with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but >> she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself >> at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the >> world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable >> relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". >> Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability >> oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for >> these stakeholders in all such groups. >> Deirdre >> >> -- >> “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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 16 23:04:30 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:04:30 +1100 Subject: [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative Message-ID: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> Note: ISOC is refusing to participate at this stage in WEF NMI initiative Big development... will be interesting to see responses From: Dave Farber via ip Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative A must read djf ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Bob Hinden" Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" Cc: Attached is the statement that will be on the ISOC web site in 30 minutes or so. Once you see it there, please post it to facebook and tweet it. Thanks for the very productive meeting yesterday and today! Thanks, Bob _______________________________________________ ISOC-trustees mailing list ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20141116-ISOC-BOT-NMI-Statement.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 149690 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Guru at ITforChange.net Sun Nov 16 23:53:47 2014 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (Guru) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:23:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Ireland's low tax draws ire Message-ID: <54697F5B.9020701@ITforChange.net> "....The Irish government agreed in October to phase out a widely used tax loophole known as the “double Irish” that experts say has saved significant money for companies like Google and Microsoft. Policymakers in the United States and the European Union also are taking an increasingly tough stance toward countries like Ireland and Luxembourg, whose low corporate tax rates and complicated tax rules have enticed international companies like Amazon, Apple and Intel to locate their global operations there. ..... read more on http://www.deccanherald.com/content/442002/irelands-low-tax-draws-ire.html Fair global taxation regime is a critical IG issue.... and such a regime will have a salutary effect on the huge power US based transnational corporations have and (ab)use, apart from providing much needed funding for building infrastructure, enabling democratic IG and other needed items Guru -- Gurumurthy Kasinathan Director, IT for Change In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC www.ITforChange.Net| Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890 http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Nov 17 00:53:45 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 00:53:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet Society Statement on the NETmundial Initiative Message-ID: For some background on this read Kieren McCarthy and Philip Corwin . joly posted: " Yesterday, November 16 2014. following it's meeting in Honolulu, the Internet Society's Board of Trustees issued the following statement: Recently, the “I* Group” different from the one-time NETmundial meeting in which we participated in April 2014; we e" [image: Internet Society] Yesterday, November 16 2014. following its meeting in Honolulu, the Internet Society's Board of Trustees issued the following statement : Recently, the “I* Group” [1] was invited to participate in the NETmundial Initiative, which is different from the one-time NETmundial meeting in which we participated in April 2014; we endorsed the outcomes of that meeting. This new and different NETmundial Initiative has been organized by the partnership of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br), the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and the World Economic Forum (WEF)[2]. This announcement has resulted in considerable discussion and concern amongst various stakeholders regarding the purpose, scope, and nature of the proposed activity or organization. The Internet Society Board discussed this proposed NETmundial Initiative in depth during its meeting November 15 – 16, 2014. As a result, the Internet Society Board first emphasizes that the main priority facing the Internet community right now is the IANA Functions’ Stewardship Transition and recommends that all organizations in the Internet community should be highly focused on effectuating a successful transition. The Internet Society remains fully committed to the September 2015 milestone set for completing a plan that will meet the criteria set by U.S. National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA). With respect to the need for new groups, such as the NETmundial Initiative and its Coordination Council, the Internet Society Board reiterates that the Internet Society’s longstanding position is that there is no single, global platform that can serve to coordinate, organize or govern all the Internet issues that may arise. At its heart, the Internet is a decentralized, loosely coupled, distributed system that allows policies to be defined by those who require them for their operations and that ensures that issues can be resolved at a level closest to their origin. The ecosystem draws its strength from the involvement of a broad range of actors working through open, transparent, and collaborative processes to innovate and build the network of networks that is the cornerstone of the global economy.[3] Based on the information that we have to date, the Internet Society cannot agree to participate in or endorse the Coordination Council for the NETmundial Initiative. We are concerned that the way in which the NETmundial Initiative is being formed does not appear to be consistent with the Internet Society’s longstanding principles, including: • Bottom-up orientation • Decentralized • Open • Transparent • Accountable • Multi-stakeholder The Board has asked the Internet Society’s CEO, Kathryn Brown, to convene a dialogue within the Internet Society community. This includes Internet Society Chapters from around the world, Internet Society organization members, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), partners from the Internet technical community, and others. The dialogue should consider whether any new initiatives or groups are needed at the current time and, if so, to define the objectives for any such effort. In addition, Bob Hinden, Chairman of the Internet Society Board of Trustees has initiated a dialogue with the Chairman of the ICANN Board, given ICANN’s leading involvement in the NETmundial Initiative. The Internet Society remains committed to a vision of the Internet that is open, inclusive, decentralized and for the benefit of all people throughout the world. Notes: [1] The I* Group encompasses the Internet Society, IETF, IAB, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), ICANN, and the regional Top Level Domain (TLD) organizations. [2] https://www.netmundial.org/press-release-1 [3] The Internet Society’s position from the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) of 2003 and 2005, is “Many issues cannot be solved by new, overarching structures at a global level but rather by building on today’s open, multi-stakeholder and cooperative processes.” And that the community should “...consider whether new structures will bring truly measurable, positive change to the functioning, stability, security and openness of the Internet.” (http://www.internetsociety.org/wsis). Comment See all comments *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7205 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Mon Nov 17 02:47:01 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 08:47:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> Message-ID: <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> ISOC said more or less the same thing in 2005 about the idea of founding an Internet Governance Forum. jeanette Am 17.11.14 05:04, schrieb Ian Peter: > Note: ISOC is refusing to participate at this stage in WEF NMI initiative > Big development... will be interesting to see responses > *From:* Dave Farber via ip > *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM > *To:* ip > *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative > > A must read djf > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Bob Hinden" > > Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM > Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative > To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" > > Cc: > > Attached is the statement that will be on the ISOC web site in 30 > minutes or so. > > Once you see it there, please post it to facebook and tweet it. > > Thanks for the very productive meeting yesterday and today! > > Thanks, > Bob > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ISOC-trustees mailing list > ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees > > Archives > | > Modify > > Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now > > [Powered by Listbox] > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Nov 17 03:18:29 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 09:18:29 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <777AEF8E-1E4E-4498-AEB7-42272058B409@gmail.com> Hi Kathy was very skeptical at the 28 August meeting held at WEF, so it’s no surprise. At the time her concerns seemed to focus mostly on procedural aspects, the way the whole thing was being teed up, explained and constituted, which was bugging a lot of people. I think the organizers tried to accommodate some of the push back they received, e.g. by inviting the CSCG to review CS proposals and bless five, but ambiguities remain as we’ve discussed. What the ISOC statement does not do is assess whether the idea of such a platform could be substantively useful. The case there alas has not been made clearly enough yet either. I have to admit I don’t quite get ISOC’s statement that "no single, global platform that can serve to coordinate, organize or govern all the Internet issues,” since that clearly is not what’s being proposed. In any event, if more networks decide not to participate in providing names the organizers will indeed be free to compose the CC however they like. Best Bill > On Nov 17, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > ISOC said more or less the same thing in 2005 about the idea of founding an Internet Governance Forum. > jeanette > > Am 17.11.14 05:04, schrieb Ian Peter: >> Note: ISOC is refusing to participate at this stage in WEF NMI initiative >> Big development... will be interesting to see responses >> *From:* Dave Farber via ip >> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM >> *To:* ip >> *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >> >> A must read djf >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: "Bob Hinden" > >> Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM >> Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >> To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" > > >> Cc: >> >> Attached is the statement that will be on the ISOC web site in 30 >> minutes or so. >> >> Once you see it there, please post it to facebook and tweet it. >> >> Thanks for the very productive meeting yesterday and today! >> >> Thanks, >> Bob >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ISOC-trustees mailing list >> ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees >> >> Archives >> | >> Modify >> >> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now >> >> [Powered by Listbox] >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com Mon Nov 17 03:23:40 2014 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 09:23:40 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <777AEF8E-1E4E-4498-AEB7-42272058B409@gmail.com> References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> <777AEF8E-1E4E-4498-AEB7-42272058B409@gmail.com> Message-ID: Agree with Bill on two points. Ambiguities, lack of clarity... But one question though: Bill, do you suggest that networks should participate in order for the organizers not to be free to compose the CC however they like? Is that the argument to join? Best, JC Le 17 nov. 2014 à 09:18, William Drake a écrit : > Hi > > Kathy was very skeptical at the 28 August meeting held at WEF, so it’s no surprise. At the time her concerns seemed to focus mostly on procedural aspects, the way the whole thing was being teed up, explained and constituted, which was bugging a lot of people. I think the organizers tried to accommodate some of the push back they received, e.g. by inviting the CSCG to review CS proposals and bless five, but ambiguities remain as we’ve discussed. > > What the ISOC statement does not do is assess whether the idea of such a platform could be substantively useful. The case there alas has not been made clearly enough yet either. I have to admit I don’t quite get ISOC’s statement that "no single, global platform that can serve to coordinate, organize or govern all the Internet issues,” since that clearly is not what’s being proposed. > > In any event, if more networks decide not to participate in providing names the organizers will indeed be free to compose the CC however they like. > > Best > > Bill > >> On Nov 17, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> >> ISOC said more or less the same thing in 2005 about the idea of founding an Internet Governance Forum. >> jeanette >> >> Am 17.11.14 05:04, schrieb Ian Peter: >>> Note: ISOC is refusing to participate at this stage in WEF NMI initiative >>> Big development... will be interesting to see responses >>> *From:* Dave Farber via ip >>> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM >>> *To:* ip >>> *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >>> >>> A must read djf >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: "Bob Hinden" > >>> Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM >>> Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >>> To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" >> > >>> Cc: >>> >>> Attached is the statement that will be on the ISOC web site in 30 >>> minutes or so. >>> >>> Once you see it there, please post it to facebook and tweet it. >>> >>> Thanks for the very productive meeting yesterday and today! >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Bob >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ISOC-trustees mailing list >>> ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees >>> >>> Archives >>> | >>> Modify >>> >>> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now >>> >>> [Powered by Listbox] >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > *********************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Mon Nov 17 05:44:55 2014 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 11:44:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, Inclusion as mentioned by Ginger and Deirde should be very useful for MAG community. Sonigitu Ekpe Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 2:04 AM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > Oops! I should have been more careful to remind people that the context of > this thread was the MAG. The "mechanism" referred to a means of including a > voice for people with disabilities as a permanent component of the MAG and > wasn't intended in any way to question the value of the great work that is > being done by DCAD. > > Deirdre > Judy has done a wonderful job in IG and on the MAG, and I am sure she will > continue to help us address issues for persons with disabilities and other > topics. The MAG does have another important advocate for persons with > disabilities: Peter Major (DCAD Co-Coordinator, Special advisor, Hungarian > Mission to the UN, Geneva). I am sure that he, Judy, and the other members > of the DCAD (Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability), including > De Williams and myself will continue to keep disability and inclusion > issues high on the IGF agenda (think remote participation too). I am sure > most of you are also familiar with the work of Andrea Saks as well--who is > very active in IGF disability issues, with no need to be on the MAG to > constantly push for change. > > While there is no doubt in my mind that disability issues are very > important,I have to admit, I am not sure that more mechanisms are the > answer. (' What is needed is a mechanism to ensure that the concerns of > people with disabilities are expressed.'). I think that the DCAD and the I > *SOC* Disabilities and Special Needs *Chapter*, as well as other > advocates, do an excellent job of addressing concerns, and that we can all > learn from their very practical work--DCAD was instrumental in making > transcripts a part of IGF meetings (which is an amazing tool for all of > us), and is, for example, a strong support for remote participation, as > there is great synergy in tools, resources and concerns about inclusion. > > I hope we can make sure that all voices are heard, including those of > youth and persons with disabilities. It's amazing what we learn from each > other, and how we all benefit in the end. > > Please do help me (as a new MAG member) and the MAG include your concerns > in the IGF agendas. Don't forget that each of you can bring your positions > directly to the IGF Secretariat through the contributions that are often > requested (See* www.intgovforum.org/cms/ > **Taking stock of IGF 2014 and looking > forward to IGF 2015* -- Stakeholders were invited to submit written > contributions taking stock of the Istanbul IGF meeting and looking forward > to the IGF 2015 meeting, including suggestions on the format, schedule and > themes. The submitted contributions > are > available and will be synthesized into a paper that will form an input into > the Open Consultations and MAG meetings of 1-3 December.) > > Cheers, > Ginger > > > > On 14 November 2014 15:53, Akinremi Peter Taiwo > wrote: > >> That's a good suggestion raised by Lorena, there is strong need for >> disabilities to use and maximize the internet and I strongly see the >> internet as an avenue to compensate for their loss. The same issue was >> raised during Netmundia meeting in Brazil but I doubt it weather they >> really give attention to it. @ Williams and folks, how do u think we can >> stand and help the disabilities have part in IoT. >> On Nov 14, 2014 3:00 PM, "Deirdre Williams" >> wrote: >> >>> Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the >>> Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people >>> with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but >>> she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself >>> at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the >>> world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable >>> relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". >>> Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability >>> oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for >>> these stakeholders in all such groups. >>> Deirdre >>> >>> -- >>> "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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Nov 17 07:27:08 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 13:27:08 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> <777AEF8E-1E4E-4498-AEB7-42272058B409@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6BA1286F-33AF-4BDA-9FAC-836826C63255@gmail.com> > On Nov 17, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: > > But one question though: Bill, do you suggest that networks should participate in order for the organizers not to be free to compose the CC however they like? Is that the argument to join? That’s ‘an' argument to join, whether it’s a sufficient ‘the’ is in the eye of the beholder. If one doesn’t care about having a platform where project proponents can find the kind of partners this might make available, or even thinks it’s a bad idea, then how the CC is composed is presumably irrelevant. I’d think people should only labor to agree on nominees if they believe the whole concept may be worth trying. Cheers Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From remmyn at gmail.com Mon Nov 17 07:44:22 2014 From: remmyn at gmail.com (Remmy Nweke) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 04:44:22 -0800 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities Message-ID: <1171852000157002041@unknownmsgid> Let me add my voice to Deidre's narration. Yes we often forget those with disabilities and I think now we are reminded of it, thus imperative we all support the call for inclusion. May be pass that as a resolution to make or have a rep from them at part of MAG process. Thus should also apply to member nations too that way we will no longer forget. Nice day all. Remmy Nweke @ITRealms A member of DigitalSENSE Sent from my Windows Phone ------------------------------ From: Deirdre Williams Sent: 14/11/2014 15:01 To: Internet Governance Subject: [governance] People with disabilities Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for these stakeholders in all such groups. Deirdre -- "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Nov 17 07:54:39 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:54:39 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <5469F00F.9070605@cafonso.ca> Very good point, Jean! frt rgds --c.a. On 11/17/2014 05:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > ISOC said more or less the same thing in 2005 about the idea of founding > an Internet Governance Forum. > jeanette > > Am 17.11.14 05:04, schrieb Ian Peter: >> Note: ISOC is refusing to participate at this stage in WEF NMI initiative >> Big development... will be interesting to see responses >> *From:* Dave Farber via ip >> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM >> *To:* ip >> *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >> >> A must read djf >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: "Bob Hinden" > >> Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM >> Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial >> Initiative >> To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" > > >> Cc: >> >> Attached is the statement that will be on the ISOC web site in 30 >> minutes or so. >> >> Once you see it there, please post it to facebook and tweet it. >> >> Thanks for the very productive meeting yesterday and today! >> >> Thanks, >> Bob >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ISOC-trustees mailing list >> ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees >> >> Archives >> | >> Modify >> >> >> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now >> >> >> [Powered by Listbox] >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From judyokite at gmail.com Mon Nov 17 10:07:25 2014 From: judyokite at gmail.com (Judy Okite) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 18:07:25 +0300 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: <1171852000157002041@unknownmsgid> References: <1171852000157002041@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: Thank you All, for your contributions and support, I highly appreciate it! Indeed to have the persons with disabilities voices and concerns raised in these forums is important, but the utmost importance is to have them involved, be part of the process, be part of the team. Could we have this in signatures and forward it to the secretariat to have this discussed as part of AOB in the December meeting? De, whats your thought? Kind Regards, *'Chance Favors the prepared mind'* - Louis Pasteur On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Remmy Nweke wrote: > Let me add my voice to Deidre's narration. > Yes we often forget those with disabilities and I think now we are > reminded of it, thus imperative we all support the call for inclusion. May > be pass that as a resolution to make or have a rep from them at part of MAG > process. > Thus should also apply to member nations too that way we will no longer > forget. > Nice day all. > Remmy Nweke > @ITRealms > A member of DigitalSENSE > > Sent from my Windows Phone > ------------------------------ > From: Deirdre Williams > Sent: 14/11/2014 15:01 > To: Internet Governance > Subject: [governance] People with disabilities > > Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the > Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people > with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but > she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself > at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the > world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable > relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". > Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability > oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for > these stakeholders in all such groups. > Deirdre > > -- > “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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From judith at jhellerstein.com Mon Nov 17 10:48:17 2014 From: judith at jhellerstein.com (Judith Hellerstein) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:48:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: <1171852000157002041@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <546A18C1.1060003@jhellerstein.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Nov 17 10:55:09 2014 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:55:09 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <5469F00F.9070605@cafonso.ca> References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> <5469F00F.9070605@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: My guess is more elements need to be more transparent before ISOC will engage in quite the way other international advocates are eager to. A lot is being pushed the rest of this year and next, and those things need to get more explicit rather than indirect as far as the underlying foundations. On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Very good point, Jean! > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 11/17/2014 05:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> ISOC said more or less the same thing in 2005 about the idea of founding >> an Internet Governance Forum. >> jeanette >> >> Am 17.11.14 05:04, schrieb Ian Peter: >>> Note: ISOC is refusing to participate at this stage in WEF NMI initiative >>> Big development... will be interesting to see responses >>> *From:* Dave Farber via ip >>> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM >>> *To:* ip >>> *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >>> >>> A must read djf >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: "Bob Hinden" > >>> Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM >>> Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial >>> Initiative >>> To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" >> > >>> Cc: >>> >>> Attached is the statement that will be on the ISOC web site in 30 >>> minutes or so. >>> >>> Once you see it there, please post it to facebook and tweet it. >>> >>> Thanks for the very productive meeting yesterday and today! >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Bob >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ISOC-trustees mailing list >>> ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees >>> >>> Archives >>> | >>> Modify >>> >>> >>> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now >>> >>> >>> [Powered by Listbox] >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From compsoftnet at gmail.com Mon Nov 17 11:16:38 2014 From: compsoftnet at gmail.com (Akinremi Peter Taiwo) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 17:16:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: <546A18C1.1060003@jhellerstein.com> References: <1171852000157002041@unknownmsgid> <546A18C1.1060003@jhellerstein.com> Message-ID: Hey Judy, +1, totally in support. It is an issue that need serious attention On Nov 17, 2014 4:49 PM, "Judith Hellerstein" wrote: > Hi Judy, > > I think this is an excellent idea. I support this > > Best, > Judith > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO > Hellerstein & Associates > 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 > Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein > E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com > Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ > Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide > > > On 11/17/2014, 10:07 AM, Judy Okite wrote: > > Thank you All, > > for your contributions and support, I highly appreciate it! > > Indeed to have the persons with disabilities voices and concerns raised > in these forums is important, but the utmost importance is to have them > involved, be part of the process, be part of the team. > > Could we have this in signatures and forward it to the secretariat to > have this discussed as part of AOB in the December meeting? > > De, whats your thought? > > Kind Regards, > > *'Chance Favors the prepared mind'* - Louis Pasteur > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Remmy Nweke wrote: > >> Let me add my voice to Deidre's narration. >> Yes we often forget those with disabilities and I think now we are >> reminded of it, thus imperative we all support the call for inclusion. May >> be pass that as a resolution to make or have a rep from them at part of MAG >> process. >> Thus should also apply to member nations too that way we will no longer >> forget. >> Nice day all. >> Remmy Nweke >> @ITRealms >> A member of DigitalSENSE >> >> Sent from my Windows Phone >> ------------------------------ >> From: Deirdre Williams >> Sent: 14/11/2014 15:01 >> To: Internet Governance >> Subject: [governance] People with disabilities >> >> Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the >> Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people >> with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but >> she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself >> at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the >> world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable >> relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". >> Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability >> oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for >> these stakeholders in all such groups. >> Deirdre >> >> -- >> “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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 17 12:09:47 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 13:09:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: <1171852000157002041@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: My thought is "go for it". However I think it will be necessary to establish that "people with disabilities" are a stakeholder group, rather than an issue. Ginger and I spent an hour discussing that last night without reaching any resolution. This conversation began because of Lorena's suggestion to institutionalise the inclusion of someone representative of "the youth" as happened fortuitously this year with the selection of Bianca for the MAG. There are other interests which might also feel the desirability of being given an "own representative". Can we present a strong enough argument to persuade the MAG in its wisdom to support the creation of a somewhat "dangerous" precedent? On 17 November 2014 11:07, Judy Okite wrote: > Thank you All, > > for your contributions and support, I highly appreciate it! > > Indeed to have the persons with disabilities voices and concerns raised in > these forums is important, but the utmost importance is to have them > involved, be part of the process, be part of the team. > > Could we have this in signatures and forward it to the secretariat to have > this discussed as part of AOB in the December meeting? > > De, whats your thought? > > Kind Regards, > > *'Chance Favors the prepared mind'* - Louis Pasteur > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Remmy Nweke wrote: > >> Let me add my voice to Deidre's narration. >> Yes we often forget those with disabilities and I think now we are >> reminded of it, thus imperative we all support the call for inclusion. May >> be pass that as a resolution to make or have a rep from them at part of MAG >> process. >> Thus should also apply to member nations too that way we will no longer >> forget. >> Nice day all. >> Remmy Nweke >> @ITRealms >> A member of DigitalSENSE >> >> Sent from my Windows Phone >> ------------------------------ >> From: Deirdre Williams >> Sent: 14/11/2014 15:01 >> To: Internet Governance >> Subject: [governance] People with disabilities >> >> Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the >> Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people >> with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but >> she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself >> at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the >> world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable >> relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". >> Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability >> oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for >> these stakeholders in all such groups. >> Deirdre >> >> -- >> “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 >> >> > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Nov 17 12:20:22 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 18:20:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] NMI: The Caravan Has Set Out for a Neo-liberal Capture of Global Governance Message-ID: <20141117182022.257a7575@quill> As many of you will be aware, JNC has been opposed a couple of months ago to the first shape in which the “NetMundial Initiative” (NMI) had been announced. NMI has now be redesigned in some ways, and WEF is now a bit less in the foreground, but the underlying ideology is still the same. For this reason, JNC is still opposed. For a more detailed explanation see “The Caravan Has Set Out for a Neo-liberal Capture of Global Governance” at http://justnetcoalition.org/NMI-neoliberal-caravan Greetings, Norbert co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From remmyn at gmail.com Mon Nov 17 12:32:48 2014 From: remmyn at gmail.com (Remmy Nweke) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 18:32:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: <1171852000157002041@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: Dear Deirdre, So far your submissions have been engaging and interesting, but I did not understand the aspect of "dangerous" precedent. Is it that our support for recognition of persons with disabilities in the MAG is a dangerous step or that it would amount to that in the future? If yes, why? We must have at the back of our mind that issues must be treated on merit, of course, I think this subject herein is merited. However, I would appreciate more light/explanation before I can ask further questions. Thanks Remmy On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > My thought is "go for it". > However I think it will be necessary to establish that "people with > disabilities" are a stakeholder group, rather than an issue. Ginger and I > spent an hour discussing that last night without reaching any resolution. > This conversation began because of Lorena's suggestion to institutionalise > the inclusion of someone representative of "the youth" as happened > fortuitously this year with the selection of Bianca for the MAG. There are > other interests which might also feel the desirability of being given an > "own representative". Can we present a strong enough argument to persuade > the MAG in its wisdom to support the creation of a somewhat "dangerous" > precedent? > > On 17 November 2014 11:07, Judy Okite wrote: > >> Thank you All, >> >> for your contributions and support, I highly appreciate it! >> >> Indeed to have the persons with disabilities voices and concerns raised >> in these forums is important, but the utmost importance is to have them >> involved, be part of the process, be part of the team. >> >> Could we have this in signatures and forward it to the secretariat to >> have this discussed as part of AOB in the December meeting? >> >> De, whats your thought? >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> *'Chance Favors the prepared mind'* - Louis Pasteur >> >> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Remmy Nweke wrote: >> >>> Let me add my voice to Deidre's narration. >>> Yes we often forget those with disabilities and I think now we are >>> reminded of it, thus imperative we all support the call for inclusion. May >>> be pass that as a resolution to make or have a rep from them at part of MAG >>> process. >>> Thus should also apply to member nations too that way we will no longer >>> forget. >>> Nice day all. >>> Remmy Nweke >>> @ITRealms >>> A member of DigitalSENSE >>> >>> Sent from my Windows Phone >>> ------------------------------ >>> From: Deirdre Williams >>> Sent: 14/11/2014 15:01 >>> To: Internet Governance >>> Subject: [governance] People with disabilities >>> >>> Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the >>> Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people >>> with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but >>> she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself >>> at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the >>> world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable >>> relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". >>> Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability >>> oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for >>> these stakeholders in all such groups. >>> Deirdre >>> >>> -- >>> "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 >>> >>> >> > > > -- > "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > -- ____ REMMY NWEKE, Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd (publishers of) DigitalSENSE Business News; ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet (Multiple-award winning medium) Published by: DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms [Member, NIRA Executive Board] Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria NDS Forum on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2015 < http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng>- June 5 Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2015 - June 6 @Welcome Centre Hotels. Register now. Email: remnekkv at gmail.com _____________________________________________________________________ *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Nov 17 12:46:17 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 12:46:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Human Rights, Accountability, and Internet Governance Message-ID: Just starting. Another top flight event from ISOC-DC. joly posted: " Today, Monday 17 November 2014 the Greater Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society (ISOC-DC) and the Institute of International Economic Policy (IIEP) present Human Rights, Accountability, and Internet Governance . This free luncheon seminar consid" [image: ISOC DC Human Rights in IG] Today,* Monday 17 November 2014* the *Greater Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society * (ISOC-DC) and the *Institute of International Economic Policy *(IIEP) present *Human Rights, Accountability, and Internet Governance *. This free luncheon seminar considers how recent proposed changes in Internet governance will affect human rights online and how Internet governance institutions and processes might be made more accountable to netizens. Panel: Ambassador *David Gross*, Wiley Rein; *Danielle Kehl*, Open Technology Institute, New America Foundation; *Manu Bhardwaj*, United States Department of State; *Robert Guerra*, Founder & Executive Director, Privaterra; Member, ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC); *Andrea Glorioso*, European Union Delegation to the United States. Moderator: *Susan Ariel Aaronson*, Research Professor of International Affairs, The George Washington University. The event will be webcast live on the *Internet Society Livestream * channel. *What: Human Rights, Accountability, and Internet Governance Where: Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University, Washington DC When: Monday 17 November 2014 12-30pm-2pm EST | 17:30-19:00 UTC Webcast: https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/humanrights Twitter: @isocdc + #humanrights * Comment See all comments *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7212 -------------------------------------- -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Mon Nov 17 12:49:42 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 13:49:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: <1171852000157002041@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: Bad choice of words perhaps :-( The concerns I have heard seem to focus on the possibility that if one group is given special status as regards representation then several other groups may ask for the same facility. If you look back in this thread Arsene on 14th was the first person to express this concern. I think I used "dangerous" (and please note the "...") because the stability of the MAG is very important. Therefore it is essential that the justification for the request should be quite clear and offer no threat to that stability. On 17 November 2014 13:32, Remmy Nweke wrote: > Dear Deirdre, > So far your submissions have been engaging and interesting, but I did not > understand the aspect of "dangerous" precedent. > > Is it that our support for recognition of persons with disabilities in the > MAG is a dangerous step or that it would amount to that in the future? If > yes, why? > > We must have at the back of our mind that issues must be treated on merit, > of course, I think this subject herein is merited. > > However, I would appreciate more light/explanation before I can ask > further questions. > Thanks > Remmy > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Deirdre Williams < > williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > >> My thought is "go for it". >> However I think it will be necessary to establish that "people with >> disabilities" are a stakeholder group, rather than an issue. Ginger and I >> spent an hour discussing that last night without reaching any resolution. >> This conversation began because of Lorena's suggestion to institutionalise >> the inclusion of someone representative of "the youth" as happened >> fortuitously this year with the selection of Bianca for the MAG. There are >> other interests which might also feel the desirability of being given an >> "own representative". Can we present a strong enough argument to persuade >> the MAG in its wisdom to support the creation of a somewhat "dangerous" >> precedent? >> >> On 17 November 2014 11:07, Judy Okite wrote: >> >>> Thank you All, >>> >>> for your contributions and support, I highly appreciate it! >>> >>> Indeed to have the persons with disabilities voices and concerns raised >>> in these forums is important, but the utmost importance is to have them >>> involved, be part of the process, be part of the team. >>> >>> Could we have this in signatures and forward it to the secretariat to >>> have this discussed as part of AOB in the December meeting? >>> >>> De, whats your thought? >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> *'Chance Favors the prepared mind'* - Louis Pasteur >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Remmy Nweke wrote: >>> >>>> Let me add my voice to Deidre's narration. >>>> Yes we often forget those with disabilities and I think now we are >>>> reminded of it, thus imperative we all support the call for inclusion. May >>>> be pass that as a resolution to make or have a rep from them at part of MAG >>>> process. >>>> Thus should also apply to member nations too that way we will no longer >>>> forget. >>>> Nice day all. >>>> Remmy Nweke >>>> @ITRealms >>>> A member of DigitalSENSE >>>> >>>> Sent from my Windows Phone >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> From: Deirdre Williams >>>> Sent: 14/11/2014 15:01 >>>> To: Internet Governance >>>> Subject: [governance] People with disabilities >>>> >>>> Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the >>>> Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people >>>> with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but >>>> she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself >>>> at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the >>>> world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable >>>> relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". >>>> Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability >>>> oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for >>>> these stakeholders in all such groups. >>>> Deirdre >>>> >>>> -- >>>> “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 >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> > > > > -- > ____ > REMMY NWEKE, > Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, > DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd > (publishers of) DigitalSENSE Business News; > ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet > (Multiple-award winning medium) > Published by: DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd > Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza > Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos > M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, > T: @ITRealms > [Member, NIRA Executive Board] > Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria > > NDS Forum on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2015 < > http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng>- June 5 > Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2015 - June 6 > @Welcome Centre Hotels. Register now. Email: remnekkv at gmail.com > _____________________________________________________________________ > *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments > are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended > only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal > responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the > intended > recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do > not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make > any copies. Violators may face court persecution. > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wjdrake at gmail.com Mon Nov 17 13:13:23 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 19:13:23 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4CA15892-2DD6-4377-A15C-9E0E6B227A02@gmail.com> Denounced it as a threat until it was clearly going to happen anyway, and then loved it to death. BD > On Nov 17, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > ISOC said more or less the same thing in 2005 about the idea of founding an Internet Governance Forum. > jeanette > > Am 17.11.14 05:04, schrieb Ian Peter: >> Note: ISOC is refusing to participate at this stage in WEF NMI initiative >> Big development... will be interesting to see responses >> *From:* Dave Farber via ip >> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM >> *To:* ip >> *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >> >> A must read djf >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: "Bob Hinden" > >> Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM >> Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >> To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" > > >> Cc: >> >> Attached is the statement that will be on the ISOC web site in 30 >> minutes or so. >> >> Once you see it there, please post it to facebook and tweet it. >> >> Thanks for the very productive meeting yesterday and today! >> >> Thanks, >> Bob >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ISOC-trustees mailing list >> ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees >> >> Archives >> | >> Modify >> >> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now >> >> [Powered by Listbox] >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From remmyn at gmail.com Mon Nov 17 13:32:11 2014 From: remmyn at gmail.com (Remmy Nweke) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 19:32:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: <1171852000157002041@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: Thanks Deirdre for the explanation, However, no matter what other opinion, we must be conscious of the moment and relate it to the reality of things. I am convinced that Arsene "alert" is not unfounded but a note for careful decision making, so no threat meant as far as I can deduce. Therefore, I would like to submit that there is nothing, absolutely nothing wrong in us advocating inclusion of disability colleagues in the MAG in real sense of it, after all we say its a multi-stakeholder, yet the question here remain whether we have made the multi-stakeholderism a reality or are we still guessing with semantics? Posterity will be on our side for seeing enough reasons to accommodate this request, after all, for instance, those of us who have worked closely with Judy Okite, know her capability when it comes to work despite all odds. I am sure those Ginger Prague mentioned earlier have been as hardworking as Judy among our pears for them to merit such mentions and recognition. So, our decision must reflect the reality of things with purpose driven. If there are other request for inclusion as feared by Arsene, then when we get to the bridge, let us cross it, but for now. This is proposal is imperative. Goodevening from Lagos Remmy On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > Bad choice of words perhaps :-( > The concerns I have heard seem to focus on the possibility that if one > group is given special status as regards representation then several other > groups may ask for the same facility. If you look back in this thread > Arsene on 14th was the first person to express this concern. > I think I used "dangerous" (and please note the "...") because the > stability of the MAG is very important. Therefore it is essential that the > justification for the request should be quite clear and offer no threat to > that stability. > > On 17 November 2014 13:32, Remmy Nweke wrote: > >> Dear Deirdre, >> So far your submissions have been engaging and interesting, but I did not >> understand the aspect of "dangerous" precedent. >> >> Is it that our support for recognition of persons with disabilities in >> the MAG is a dangerous step or that it would amount to that in the future? >> If yes, why? >> >> We must have at the back of our mind that issues must be treated on >> merit, of course, I think this subject herein is merited. >> >> However, I would appreciate more light/explanation before I can ask >> further questions. >> Thanks >> Remmy >> >> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Deirdre Williams < >> williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> My thought is "go for it". >>> However I think it will be necessary to establish that "people with >>> disabilities" are a stakeholder group, rather than an issue. Ginger and I >>> spent an hour discussing that last night without reaching any resolution. >>> This conversation began because of Lorena's suggestion to institutionalise >>> the inclusion of someone representative of "the youth" as happened >>> fortuitously this year with the selection of Bianca for the MAG. There are >>> other interests which might also feel the desirability of being given an >>> "own representative". Can we present a strong enough argument to persuade >>> the MAG in its wisdom to support the creation of a somewhat "dangerous" >>> precedent? >>> >>> On 17 November 2014 11:07, Judy Okite wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you All, >>>> >>>> for your contributions and support, I highly appreciate it! >>>> >>>> Indeed to have the persons with disabilities voices and concerns raised >>>> in these forums is important, but the utmost importance is to have them >>>> involved, be part of the process, be part of the team. >>>> >>>> Could we have this in signatures and forward it to the secretariat to >>>> have this discussed as part of AOB in the December meeting? >>>> >>>> De, whats your thought? >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> >>>> *'Chance Favors the prepared mind'* - Louis Pasteur >>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Remmy Nweke wrote: >>>> >>>>> Let me add my voice to Deidre's narration. >>>>> Yes we often forget those with disabilities and I think now we are >>>>> reminded of it, thus imperative we all support the call for inclusion. May >>>>> be pass that as a resolution to make or have a rep from them at part of MAG >>>>> process. >>>>> Thus should also apply to member nations too that way we will no >>>>> longer forget. >>>>> Nice day all. >>>>> Remmy Nweke >>>>> @ITRealms >>>>> A member of DigitalSENSE >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> From: Deirdre Williams >>>>> Sent: 14/11/2014 15:01 >>>>> To: Internet Governance >>>>> Subject: [governance] People with disabilities >>>>> >>>>> Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the >>>>> Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people >>>>> with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but >>>>> she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself >>>>> at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the >>>>> world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable >>>>> relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". >>>>> Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability >>>>> oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for >>>>> these stakeholders in all such groups. >>>>> Deirdre >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> "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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ____ >> REMMY NWEKE, >> Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, >> DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd >> (publishers of) DigitalSENSE Business News; >> ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet >> (Multiple-award winning medium) >> Published by: DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd >> Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza >> Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos >> M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, >> T: @ITRealms >> [Member, NIRA Executive Board] >> Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria >> >> NDS Forum on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2015 < >> http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng>- June 5 >> Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2015 - June 6 >> @Welcome Centre Hotels. Register now. Email: remnekkv at gmail.com >> _____________________________________________________________________ >> *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and >> attachments >> are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended >> only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept >> legal >> responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the >> intended >> recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do >> not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make >> any copies. Violators may face court persecution. >> > > > > -- > "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > -- ____ REMMY NWEKE, Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd (publishers of) DigitalSENSE Business News; ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet (Multiple-award winning medium) Published by: DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms [Member, NIRA Executive Board] Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria NDS Forum on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2015 < http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng>- June 5 Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2015 - June 6 @Welcome Centre Hotels. Register now. Email: remnekkv at gmail.com _____________________________________________________________________ *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Nov 17 13:41:13 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 16:41:13 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <4CA15892-2DD6-4377-A15C-9E0E6B227A02@gmail.com> References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> <4CA15892-2DD6-4377-A15C-9E0E6B227A02@gmail.com> Message-ID: <546A4149.4040700@cafonso.ca> Basically yes, Bill. --c.a. On 11/17/2014 04:13 PM, William Drake wrote: > Denounced it as a threat until it was clearly going to happen anyway, and then loved it to death. > > BD > >> On Nov 17, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> >> ISOC said more or less the same thing in 2005 about the idea of founding an Internet Governance Forum. >> jeanette >> >> Am 17.11.14 05:04, schrieb Ian Peter: >>> Note: ISOC is refusing to participate at this stage in WEF NMI initiative >>> Big development... will be interesting to see responses >>> *From:* Dave Farber via ip >>> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM >>> *To:* ip >>> *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >>> >>> A must read djf >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: "Bob Hinden" > >>> Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM >>> Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >>> To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" >> > >>> Cc: >>> >>> Attached is the statement that will be on the ISOC web site in 30 >>> minutes or so. >>> >>> Once you see it there, please post it to facebook and tweet it. >>> >>> Thanks for the very productive meeting yesterday and today! >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Bob >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ISOC-trustees mailing list >>> ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees >>> >>> Archives >>> | >>> Modify >>> >>> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now >>> >>> [Powered by Listbox] >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 17 13:47:39 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 12:47:39 -0600 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <546A4149.4040700@cafonso.ca> References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> <4CA15892-2DD6-4377-A15C-9E0E6B227A02@gmail.com> <546A4149.4040700@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: I was part of the ISOC delegation at the time and I don't recall it being perceived as a threat per se, just not strictly needed. Maybe Avri has a different recollection. I do recall that they got us all together and asked us our opinion. On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Basically yes, Bill. > > --c.a. > > On 11/17/2014 04:13 PM, William Drake wrote: > > Denounced it as a threat until it was clearly going to happen anyway, > and then loved it to death. > > > > BD > > > >> On Nov 17, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> > >> > >> ISOC said more or less the same thing in 2005 about the idea of > founding an Internet Governance Forum. > >> jeanette > >> > >> Am 17.11.14 05:04, schrieb Ian Peter: > >>> Note: ISOC is refusing to participate at this stage in WEF NMI > initiative > >>> Big development... will be interesting to see responses > >>> *From:* Dave Farber via ip > >>> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM > >>> *To:* ip > >>> *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative > >>> > >>> A must read djf > >>> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>> From: "Bob Hinden" >> > >>> Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM > >>> Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial > Initiative > >>> To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" >>> > > >>> Cc: > >>> > >>> Attached is the statement that will be on the ISOC web site in 30 > >>> minutes or so. > >>> > >>> Once you see it there, please post it to facebook and tweet it. > >>> > >>> Thanks for the very productive meeting yesterday and today! > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Bob > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> ISOC-trustees mailing list > >>> ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org > >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees > >>> > >>> Archives > >>> | > >>> Modify > >>> < > https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=853646&id_secret=853646-9b832eb9 > > > >>> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now > >>> < > https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=853646&id_secret=853646-56396bc0&post_id=20141116224729:72B6A44A-6E0C-11E4-8FC0-902747AAF14F > > > >>> [Powered by Listbox] > >>> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr Mon Nov 17 14:34:48 2014 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 19:34:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1416252888.70971.YahooMailIosMobile@web28704.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 17 15:37:33 2014 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 12:37:33 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> <4CA15892-2DD6-4377-A15C-9E0E6B227A02@gmail.com> <546A4149.4040700@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <94D68119-8D80-4901-AC5C-79B5D001A40A@virtualized.org> On Nov 17, 2014, at 10:47 AM, McTim wrote: > Maybe Avri has a different recollection. I do recall that they got us all together and asked us our opinion. Out of curiosity, "they" who? Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Nov 17 16:00:34 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 02:30:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] NMI: The Caravan Has Set Out for a Neo-liberal Capture of Global Governance In-Reply-To: <20141117182022.257a7575@quill> References: <20141117182022.257a7575@quill> Message-ID: <546A61F2.4080103@itforchange.net> as appeared in the IP Watch http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/11/17/the-caravan-has-set-out-for-neo-liberal-capture-of-global-governance/ On Monday 17 November 2014 10:50 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > As many of you will be aware, JNC has been opposed a couple of months > ago to the first shape in which the “NetMundial Initiative” (NMI) had > been announced. > > NMI has now be redesigned in some ways, and WEF is now a bit less in the > foreground, but the underlying ideology is still the same. > > For this reason, JNC is still opposed. > > For a more detailed explanation see “The Caravan Has Set Out for a > Neo-liberal Capture of Global Governance” at > > http://justnetcoalition.org/NMI-neoliberal-caravan > > Greetings, > Norbert > co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 17 17:20:08 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 16:20:08 -0600 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <94D68119-8D80-4901-AC5C-79B5D001A40A@virtualized.org> References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> <4CA15892-2DD6-4377-A15C-9E0E6B227A02@gmail.com> <546A4149.4040700@cafonso.ca> <94D68119-8D80-4901-AC5C-79B5D001A40A@virtualized.org> Message-ID: ISOC staff (read Lynn St. Amour) On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 2:37 PM, David Conrad wrote: > On Nov 17, 2014, at 10:47 AM, McTim wrote: > > Maybe Avri has a different recollection. I do recall that they got us > all together and asked us our opinion. > > Out of curiosity, "they" who? > > Regards, > -drc > > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From judith at jhellerstein.com Mon Nov 17 17:35:18 2014 From: judith at jhellerstein.com (Judith Hellerstein) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 17:35:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: <1171852000157002041@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: Hi Dierdre and Judy, I think we can and if we need any help Andrea Saks who is the Chairman ITU JCA-AHF (Joint Coordinating Activity on Accessibility and Human Factors) and also the Coordinator IGF DCAD (Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability) I am sure would be happy to help. Judy I am sure you know her from your work on the Dyanmic Coalition. Best, Judith _________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide On Mon, 17 Nov 2014, Deirdre Williams wrote: > My thought is "go for it". However I think it will be necessary to establish > that "people with disabilities" are a stakeholder group, rather than an > issue. Ginger and I spent an hour discussing that last night without > reaching any resolution. This conversation began because of Lorena's > suggestion to institutionalise the inclusion of someone representative of > "the youth" as happened fortuitously this year with the selection of Bianca > for the MAG. There are other interests which might also feel the > desirability of being given an "own representative". Can we present a strong > enough argument to persuade the MAG in its wisdom to support the creation of > a somewhat "dangerous" precedent? > > On 17 November 2014 11:07, Judy Okite wrote: > Thank you All, > > for your contributions and support, I highly appreciate it! > > Indeed to have the persons with disabilities voices and concerns > raised in these forums is important,  but the utmost importance is to > have them involved, be part of the process, be part of the team. > > Could we have this in signatures and forward it to the secretariat to > have this discussed as part of AOB in the December meeting? > > De, whats your thought? > > Kind Regards, > > 'Chance Favors the prepared mind' - Louis Pasteur > > > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Remmy Nweke wrote: > Let me add my voice to Deidre's narration. > Yes we often forget those with disabilities and I think > now we are reminded of it, thus imperative we all support > the call for inclusion. May be pass that as a resolution > to make or have a rep from them at part of MAG process. > Thus should also apply to member nations too that way we > will no longer forget. > Nice day all. > Remmy Nweke > @ITRealms > A member of DigitalSENSE > > Sent from my Windows Phone > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > From: Deirdre Williams > Sent: 14/11/2014 15:01 > To: Internet Governance > Subject: [governance] People with disabilities > > Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on > the Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant > voice for people with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this > for the last few years, but she has finished her term of > appointment. She made this suggestion herself at the last MAG > meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the world > suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer > considerable relief for them, they are the holders of a very > significant "stake". > Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a > disability oneself, which is why it is so important to have a > dedicated voice for these stakeholders in all such groups. > Deirdre > > -- > ?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 > > > > > > -- > ?The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 17 17:41:01 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 23:41:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: <1171852000157002041@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: Excellent idea! I support it! Could we please also include the necessity of having a permanent seat for the youth as well? Warm regards, Lorena 2014-11-17 16:07 GMT+01:00 Judy Okite : > Thank you All, > > for your contributions and support, I highly appreciate it! > > Indeed to have the persons with disabilities voices and concerns raised in > these forums is important, but the utmost importance is to have them > involved, be part of the process, be part of the team. > > Could we have this in signatures and forward it to the secretariat to have > this discussed as part of AOB in the December meeting? > > De, whats your thought? > > Kind Regards, > > *'Chance Favors the prepared mind'* - Louis Pasteur > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Remmy Nweke wrote: > >> Let me add my voice to Deidre's narration. >> Yes we often forget those with disabilities and I think now we are >> reminded of it, thus imperative we all support the call for inclusion. May >> be pass that as a resolution to make or have a rep from them at part of MAG >> process. >> Thus should also apply to member nations too that way we will no longer >> forget. >> Nice day all. >> Remmy Nweke >> @ITRealms >> A member of DigitalSENSE >> >> Sent from my Windows Phone >> ------------------------------ >> From: Deirdre Williams >> Sent: 14/11/2014 15:01 >> To: Internet Governance >> Subject: [governance] People with disabilities >> >> Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the >> Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people >> with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but >> she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself >> at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the >> world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable >> relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". >> Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability >> oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for >> these stakeholders in all such groups. >> Deirdre >> >> -- >> “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 > > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí ∙ Coordinator, Global Internet Governance Arbeitsgruppe Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.intgovforum.de ∙ www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 17 17:51:18 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 23:51:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: <1171852000157002041@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: Oh, I somehow oversaw the rest of the thread. We already have criteria like gender and geography with regards to the candidates election. However there are other criteria which the civil society explicitly supports but does not use as a criterium for the elections at the MAG (e.g. dissabilities, youth). Imo it is a question of coherence to do so. It should not be a fortuitous factor to have someone at the MAG representing people with dissabilities, or the youth. Regards, Lorena 2014-11-17 23:41 GMT+01:00 Lorena Jaume-Palasi : > Excellent idea! I support it! Could we please also include the necessity > of having a permanent seat for the youth as well? > Warm regards, > Lorena > > 2014-11-17 16:07 GMT+01:00 Judy Okite : > >> Thank you All, >> >> for your contributions and support, I highly appreciate it! >> >> Indeed to have the persons with disabilities voices and concerns raised >> in these forums is important, but the utmost importance is to have them >> involved, be part of the process, be part of the team. >> >> Could we have this in signatures and forward it to the secretariat to >> have this discussed as part of AOB in the December meeting? >> >> De, whats your thought? >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> *'Chance Favors the prepared mind'* - Louis Pasteur >> >> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Remmy Nweke wrote: >> >>> Let me add my voice to Deidre's narration. >>> Yes we often forget those with disabilities and I think now we are >>> reminded of it, thus imperative we all support the call for inclusion. May >>> be pass that as a resolution to make or have a rep from them at part of MAG >>> process. >>> Thus should also apply to member nations too that way we will no longer >>> forget. >>> Nice day all. >>> Remmy Nweke >>> @ITRealms >>> A member of DigitalSENSE >>> >>> Sent from my Windows Phone >>> ------------------------------ >>> From: Deirdre Williams >>> Sent: 14/11/2014 15:01 >>> To: Internet Governance >>> Subject: [governance] People with disabilities >>> >>> Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the >>> Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people >>> with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but >>> she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself >>> at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the >>> world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable >>> relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". >>> Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability >>> oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for >>> these stakeholders in all such groups. >>> Deirdre >>> >>> -- >>> “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 >> >> > > > -- > > Lorena Jaume-Palasí ∙ Coordinator, Global Internet Governance > Arbeitsgruppe > > Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. > > www.intgovforum.de ∙ www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter > > ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ > Youtube > > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí ∙ Coordinator, Global Internet Governance Arbeitsgruppe Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.intgovforum.de ∙ www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 17 17:53:16 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 09:53:16 +1100 Subject: [governance] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE Message-ID: <96408CD9A453499FB72972C951A44766@Toshiba> UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE. Please note that Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) participation in the new Net Mundial initiative is still under consideration. CSCG has written to the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council suggesting that it play a co-ordinating role in the selection of civil society representatives in a coordinated bottom up manner, rather than these decisions being made by the Transitional Council (which has no civil society representation). This is still under discussion; however, we do not yet have a proposal with sufficient clarity for member coalitions to be able to decide on participation or not. While Just Net Coalition (JNC) has already determined it will not participate, other members are waiting for clarity on our proposal for a bottom up and inclusive procedure for determining civil society representatives before making any final decisions on participation. Our letter to the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council in no way signifies that any or all CS organisations have made a final decision on whether to engage with the NMI in a formal selection process or to participate in the NMI process. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Nov 17 18:09:22 2014 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 23:09:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE In-Reply-To: <96408CD9A453499FB72972C951A44766@Toshiba> References: <96408CD9A453499FB72972C951A44766@Toshiba> Message-ID: <1f13dc97484b4412841023602e403d7a@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> My 2 cents, using a poker-playing metaphor: This feels like a case where it may be best to take a seat at the table; just in case. Since chairs at preset tables which started without cs are more difficult to move. Now once at the table, who is bluffing and ready to fold and walk away asap if the NMI hand is not attractive on closer examination; and who sees this as either a big deal or a waste of time - need not be clear in this zero stage.? So I'll cautiously say why not do the CSCG thing. Especially since the I*groups save ICANN, and JNC are taking a pass this time or at this stage. And oh yeah Rousseff was just reelected; whatever her Petrobras headaches it likely won't hurt to have a BRIC head of state as a patron of...the art of this next game? : ) Lee ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net on behalf of Ian Peter Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 5:53 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE. Please note that Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) participation in the new Net Mundial initiative is still under consideration. CSCG has written to the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council suggesting that it play a co-ordinating role in the selection of civil society representatives in a coordinated bottom up manner, rather than these decisions being made by the Transitional Council (which has no civil society representation). This is still under discussion; however, we do not yet have a proposal with sufficient clarity for member coalitions to be able to decide on participation or not. While Just Net Coalition (JNC) has already determined it will not participate, other members are waiting for clarity on our proposal for a bottom up and inclusive procedure for determining civil society representatives before making any final decisions on participation. Our letter to the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council in no way signifies that any or all CS organisations have made a final decision on whether to engage with the NMI in a formal selection process or to participate in the NMI process. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 17 19:11:33 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 16:11:33 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <546A6801.70707@itforchange.net> References: <546A6801.70707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <143101d002c4$369f27b0$a3dd7710$@gmail.com> http://justnetcoalition.org/NMI-neoliberal-caravan Statement issued by the Just Net Coalition -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 17 19:25:11 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 20:25:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: <1171852000157002041@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: So lets do it :-) Deirdre On 17 November 2014 18:51, Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote: > Oh, I somehow oversaw the rest of the thread. We already have criteria > like gender and geography with regards to the candidates election. However > there are other criteria which the civil society explicitly supports but > does not use as a criterium for the elections at the MAG (e.g. > dissabilities, youth). Imo it is a question of coherence to do so. It > should not be a fortuitous factor to have someone at the MAG representing > people with dissabilities, or the youth. > Regards, > Lorena > > 2014-11-17 23:41 GMT+01:00 Lorena Jaume-Palasi : > >> Excellent idea! I support it! Could we please also include the necessity >> of having a permanent seat for the youth as well? >> Warm regards, >> Lorena >> >> 2014-11-17 16:07 GMT+01:00 Judy Okite : >> >>> Thank you All, >>> >>> for your contributions and support, I highly appreciate it! >>> >>> Indeed to have the persons with disabilities voices and concerns raised >>> in these forums is important, but the utmost importance is to have them >>> involved, be part of the process, be part of the team. >>> >>> Could we have this in signatures and forward it to the secretariat to >>> have this discussed as part of AOB in the December meeting? >>> >>> De, whats your thought? >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> *'Chance Favors the prepared mind'* - Louis Pasteur >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Remmy Nweke wrote: >>> >>>> Let me add my voice to Deidre's narration. >>>> Yes we often forget those with disabilities and I think now we are >>>> reminded of it, thus imperative we all support the call for inclusion. May >>>> be pass that as a resolution to make or have a rep from them at part of MAG >>>> process. >>>> Thus should also apply to member nations too that way we will no longer >>>> forget. >>>> Nice day all. >>>> Remmy Nweke >>>> @ITRealms >>>> A member of DigitalSENSE >>>> >>>> Sent from my Windows Phone >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> From: Deirdre Williams >>>> Sent: 14/11/2014 15:01 >>>> To: Internet Governance >>>> Subject: [governance] People with disabilities >>>> >>>> Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the >>>> Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people >>>> with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but >>>> she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself >>>> at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the >>>> world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable >>>> relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". >>>> Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability >>>> oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for >>>> these stakeholders in all such groups. >>>> Deirdre >>>> >>>> -- >>>> “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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> Lorena Jaume-Palasí ∙ Coordinator, Global Internet Governance >> Arbeitsgruppe >> >> Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. >> >> www.intgovforum.de ∙ www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter >> >> ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ >> Youtube >> >> > > > > -- > > Lorena Jaume-Palasí ∙ Coordinator, Global Internet Governance > Arbeitsgruppe > > Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. > > www.intgovforum.de ∙ www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter > > ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ > Youtube > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jmalcolm at eff.org Mon Nov 17 19:37:44 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 18:37:44 -0600 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <143101d002c4$369f27b0$a3dd7710$@gmail.com> References: <546A6801.70707@itforchange.net> <143101d002c4$369f27b0$a3dd7710$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <915854CC-711C-48FA-92AC-B9014B62EE37@eff.org> Via Norbert I have requested that JNC issue a public apology for wrongly stating in this article, along with much other dumping on civil society colleagues, that Best Bits is supporting the NETmundial Initiative. -- 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 :: > On Nov 17, 2014, at 6:11 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > http://justnetcoalition.org/NMI-neoliberal-caravan > > Statement issued by the Just Net Coalition > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Nov 18 00:12:34 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:42:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE In-Reply-To: <96408CD9A453499FB72972C951A44766@Toshiba> References: <96408CD9A453499FB72972C951A44766@Toshiba> Message-ID: <546AD542.20702@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 18 November 2014 04:23 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE. > Please note that Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group > (CSCG) participation in the new Net Mundial initiative is still under > consideration. CSCG has written to the NMI Secretariat and > Transitional Council suggesting that it play a co-ordinating role in > the selection of civil society representatives in a coordinated bottom > up manner, rather than these decisions being made by the Transitional > Council (which has no civil society representation). This is still > under discussion; however, we do not yet have a proposal with > sufficient clarity for member coalitions to be able to decide on > participation or not. While Just Net Coalition (JNC) has already > determined it will not participate, other members are waiting for > clarity on our proposal for a bottom up and inclusive procedure for > determining civil society representatives before making any final > decisions on participation. Does this not constitute an in principle agreement to participate by the concerned CS actors, if NMI guys agrees to CSCG doing CS nominations, or something close to that... Further, Is Fadi wrong in taking that impression and making it public... I think you need to make the facts such more clear and transparent about what is happening within the CSCG, what decisions and actions it takes and so on... parminder > Our letter to the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council in no way > signifies that any or all CS organisations have made a final decision > on whether to engage with the NMI in a formal selection process or to > participate in the NMI process. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Nov 18 00:37:22 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:37:22 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE In-Reply-To: <546AD542.20702@itforchange.net> References: <96408CD9A453499FB72972C951A44766@Toshiba> <546AD542.20702@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <7CD37A0771344819B39A327EA5AEBFC4@Toshiba> Not really Parminder. As you know there are differing opinions within civil society about this, and without clarity as regards how an involvement with NMI would work – information we are seeking – it is not possible for everyone to make an informed decision. Such matters as whether the NMI would want to maintain a right of veto over selections suggested by CSCG would not matter to those who oppose involvement under any circumstances, but would be significant factors as regards considering involvement for others. Ian From: parminder Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 4:12 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE On Tuesday 18 November 2014 04:23 AM, Ian Peter wrote: UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE. Please note that Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) participation in the new Net Mundial initiative is still under consideration. CSCG has written to the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council suggesting that it play a co-ordinating role in the selection of civil society representatives in a coordinated bottom up manner, rather than these decisions being made by the Transitional Council (which has no civil society representation). This is still under discussion; however, we do not yet have a proposal with sufficient clarity for member coalitions to be able to decide on participation or not. While Just Net Coalition (JNC) has already determined it will not participate, other members are waiting for clarity on our proposal for a bottom up and inclusive procedure for determining civil society representatives before making any final decisions on participation. Does this not constitute an in principle agreement to participate by the concerned CS actors, if NMI guys agrees to CSCG doing CS nominations, or something close to that... Further, Is Fadi wrong in taking that impression and making it public... I think you need to make the facts such more clear and transparent about what is happening within the CSCG, what decisions and actions it takes and so on... parminder Our letter to the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council in no way signifies that any or all CS organisations have made a final decision on whether to engage with the NMI in a formal selection process or to participate in the NMI process. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From judyokite at gmail.com Tue Nov 18 01:04:45 2014 From: judyokite at gmail.com (Judy Okite) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 09:04:45 +0300 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: References: <1171852000157002041@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: Thank you All once again... This is a very healthy discussion, I love it. I was truly honored to have been in the MAG for the last three years, it was lovely, I have enjoyed it, learnt from it and that is why I made this suggestion in the last MAG meeting and would like to see this considered. we can have a very simple approach to this...over the years IGF has consulted with DCAD coordinated by Andrea Saks on issues on accessibility (Needs for persons with disabilities) as concerning venue and accommodation etc for the IGF global events. we can use the same avenue for the Secretariat to request for one person suggested by the DCAD for this representation- I believe this will give it the credibility that it deserves. We do appreciate the journey that the IGF has taken and the flexibility that the structure allows to accommodate new ideas and suggestions . This would be my approach, because I do not think that this has been brought to the table before .... the question is " what would it take for a "permanent seat" within the MAG for whoever may request for it. What is it that the secretariat may need to consider before coming to this conclusion? I hope that this can be posed to the consultation meeting and a clear way forward, I apologize in advance, I may not be able to be online for this meeting as I am involved in the UN-DISABILITY day(3rd Dec) celebrations in my country and I will also be launching a campaign on accessibility on that day. For the MAG members, here. and all those who will attend the meeting, either online or offline ,lets be part of these discussions. thank you all, once again! Kind Regards, *'Chance Favors the prepared mind'* - Louis Pasteur On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 3:25 AM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > So lets do it :-) > Deirdre > > On 17 November 2014 18:51, Lorena Jaume-Palasi > wrote: > >> Oh, I somehow oversaw the rest of the thread. We already have criteria >> like gender and geography with regards to the candidates election. However >> there are other criteria which the civil society explicitly supports but >> does not use as a criterium for the elections at the MAG (e.g. >> dissabilities, youth). Imo it is a question of coherence to do so. It >> should not be a fortuitous factor to have someone at the MAG representing >> people with dissabilities, or the youth. >> Regards, >> Lorena >> >> 2014-11-17 23:41 GMT+01:00 Lorena Jaume-Palasi : >> >>> Excellent idea! I support it! Could we please also include the necessity >>> of having a permanent seat for the youth as well? >>> Warm regards, >>> Lorena >>> >>> 2014-11-17 16:07 GMT+01:00 Judy Okite : >>> >>>> Thank you All, >>>> >>>> for your contributions and support, I highly appreciate it! >>>> >>>> Indeed to have the persons with disabilities voices and concerns raised >>>> in these forums is important, but the utmost importance is to have them >>>> involved, be part of the process, be part of the team. >>>> >>>> Could we have this in signatures and forward it to the secretariat to >>>> have this discussed as part of AOB in the December meeting? >>>> >>>> De, whats your thought? >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> >>>> *'Chance Favors the prepared mind'* - Louis Pasteur >>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Remmy Nweke wrote: >>>> >>>>> Let me add my voice to Deidre's narration. >>>>> Yes we often forget those with disabilities and I think now we are >>>>> reminded of it, thus imperative we all support the call for inclusion. May >>>>> be pass that as a resolution to make or have a rep from them at part of MAG >>>>> process. >>>>> Thus should also apply to member nations too that way we will no >>>>> longer forget. >>>>> Nice day all. >>>>> Remmy Nweke >>>>> @ITRealms >>>>> A member of DigitalSENSE >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> From: Deirdre Williams >>>>> Sent: 14/11/2014 15:01 >>>>> To: Internet Governance >>>>> Subject: [governance] People with disabilities >>>>> >>>>> Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the >>>>> Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people >>>>> with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but >>>>> she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself >>>>> at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the >>>>> world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable >>>>> relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". >>>>> Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability >>>>> oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for >>>>> these stakeholders in all such groups. >>>>> Deirdre >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> “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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Lorena Jaume-Palasí ∙ Coordinator, Global Internet Governance >>> Arbeitsgruppe >>> >>> Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. >>> >>> www.intgovforum.de ∙ www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter >>> >>> ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ >>> Youtube >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Lorena Jaume-Palasí ∙ Coordinator, Global Internet Governance >> Arbeitsgruppe >> >> Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. >> >> www.intgovforum.de ∙ www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter >> >> ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ >> Youtube >> >> > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From remmyn at gmail.com Tue Nov 18 01:08:22 2014 From: remmyn at gmail.com (Remmy Nweke) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 22:08:22 -0800 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities Message-ID: <-9128675165625308307@unknownmsgid> Hi all Lets do it. +1 Remmy Nweke @ITRealms Sent from my Windows Phone ------------------------------ From: Lorena Jaume-Palasi Sent: 17/11/2014 23:51 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Judy Okite Cc: Remmy Nweke ; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] People with disabilities Oh, I somehow oversaw the rest of the thread. We already have criteria like gender and geography with regards to the candidates election. However there are other criteria which the civil society explicitly supports but does not use as a criterium for the elections at the MAG (e.g. dissabilities, youth). Imo it is a question of coherence to do so. It should not be a fortuitous factor to have someone at the MAG representing people with dissabilities, or the youth. Regards, Lorena 2014-11-17 23:41 GMT+01:00 Lorena Jaume-Palasi : > Excellent idea! I support it! Could we please also include the necessity > of having a permanent seat for the youth as well? > Warm regards, > Lorena > > 2014-11-17 16:07 GMT+01:00 Judy Okite : > >> Thank you All, >> >> for your contributions and support, I highly appreciate it! >> >> Indeed to have the persons with disabilities voices and concerns raised >> in these forums is important, but the utmost importance is to have them >> involved, be part of the process, be part of the team. >> >> Could we have this in signatures and forward it to the secretariat to >> have this discussed as part of AOB in the December meeting? >> >> De, whats your thought? >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> *'Chance Favors the prepared mind'* - Louis Pasteur >> >> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Remmy Nweke wrote: >> >>> Let me add my voice to Deidre's narration. >>> Yes we often forget those with disabilities and I think now we are >>> reminded of it, thus imperative we all support the call for inclusion. May >>> be pass that as a resolution to make or have a rep from them at part of MAG >>> process. >>> Thus should also apply to member nations too that way we will no longer >>> forget. >>> Nice day all. >>> Remmy Nweke >>> @ITRealms >>> A member of DigitalSENSE >>> >>> Sent from my Windows Phone >>> ------------------------------ >>> From: Deirdre Williams >>> Sent: 14/11/2014 15:01 >>> To: Internet Governance >>> Subject: [governance] People with disabilities >>> >>> Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the >>> Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for people >>> with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but >>> she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself >>> at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the >>> world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable >>> relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". >>> Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability >>> oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for >>> these stakeholders in all such groups. >>> Deirdre >>> >>> -- >>> "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 >> >> > > > -- > > Lorena Jaume-Palasí * Coordinator, Global Internet Governance > Arbeitsgruppe > > Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. > > www.intgovforum.de * www.collaboratory.de * Newsletter > > * Facebook * Twitter * > Youtube > > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí * Coordinator, Global Internet Governance Arbeitsgruppe Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.intgovforum.de * www.collaboratory.de * Newsletter * Facebook * Twitter * Youtube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Nov 18 01:11:07 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:41:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE In-Reply-To: <7CD37A0771344819B39A327EA5AEBFC4@Toshiba> References: <96408CD9A453499FB72972C951A44766@Toshiba> <546AD542.20702@itforchange.net> <7CD37A0771344819B39A327EA5AEBFC4@Toshiba> Message-ID: Dear Ian, Just Net Coalition (JNC) has already determined it will not participate, > other members are waiting for clarity on our proposal ​ > there are differing opinions within civil society about this ​If the C ivil Society ​really like the Civil Society ​ Coordination Group ​ to be a Representative around the table, or be involved in the selection of Civil Society representatives, then Just Net Coalition's position could be considered rather rushed. How would NETmundial or any other initiative go by the position of CSCG as representative when there are other groups that want to have their own position? Also, if there are some disagreements with the NETmundial process, apart from writing to the Secretariat and the Transition council, it might ease matters if you directly reach out to Steve Crocker / Fadi / Harmut and others at CGI to sort out differences, rather than rush to conclude the differences as hard differences. I feel that NETmundial would be receptive enough if there is a single Civil Society opinion. Sivasubramanian M​ ​ ​​ On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Not really Parminder. As you know > ​​ > there are differing opinions within civil society about this, > and without clarity as regards how an involvement with NMI would work – > information we are seeking – it is not possible for everyone to make an > informed decision. Such matters as whether the NMI would want to maintain > a right of veto over selections suggested by CSCG would not matter to those > who oppose involvement under any circumstances, but would be significant > factors as regards considering involvement for others. > > Ian > > *From:* parminder > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 18, 2014 4:12 PM > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET > MUNDIAL INITIATIVE > > > On Tuesday 18 November 2014 04:23 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE. > > Please note that Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group > (CSCG) participation in the new Net Mundial initiative is still under > consideration. CSCG has written to the NMI Secretariat and Transitional > Council suggesting that it play a co-ordinating role in the selection of > civil society representatives in a coordinated bottom up manner, rather > than these decisions being made by the Transitional Council (which has no > civil society representation). This is still under discussion; however, we > do not yet have a proposal with sufficient clarity for member coalitions to > be able to decide on participation or not. While Just Net Coalition (JNC) > has already determined it will not participate, other members are waiting > for clarity on our proposal for a bottom up and inclusive procedure for > determining civil society representatives before making any final decisions > on participation. > > > Does this not constitute an in principle agreement to participate by the > concerned CS actors, if NMI guys agrees to CSCG doing CS nominations, or > something close to that... Further, Is Fadi wrong in taking that impression > and making it public... I think you need to make the facts such more clear > and transparent about what is happening within the CSCG, what decisions and > actions it takes and so on... parminder > > > Our letter to the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council in no way > signifies that any or all CS organisations have made a final decision on > whether to engage with the NMI in a formal selection process or to > participate in the NMI process. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr Tue Nov 18 01:28:12 2014 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 06:28:12 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE In-Reply-To: <546AD542.20702@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1416292092.44052.YahooMailIosMobile@web28701.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 18 02:49:04 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 08:49:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jeremy, I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on civil society colleagues" you are referring to, as I see no such thing in the JNC statement - and would feel most uncomfortable would it be so. I would say JNC brings some interesting and documented facts and thoughtful perspective, even though the BestBits is never either quoted or named in this statement. As per your email recommendation having not yet shared my views on this WEF/ICANN/CGIbr topic, here are some thoughts. The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen to non JNC members: - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB Initiative) - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some quarters to create a "UN Security Council" - Eileen Donahoe, former US Ambassador at the Human Rights Council, now at HRW: "There is an urgent need for new thinking about distributed, multistakeholder governance" - Virgilio Almeida, CGIbr, National Secretary for IT policies, Brazil: "... A platform that is going to be oriented to solve Internet Governance Issues..." - Richard Samans, Managing Director, WEF: "Internet Governance issues are at the top in our industry community conversations, and this is no surprise as it has become one of the hottest political issues of our times... well beyond the technical issues our partner, ICANN, has been dealing for many many years." - Fadi Chehadé: "For the first time in Sao Paulo, the Internet community agreed on a set of common principles and a roadmap in order to energize our work together, addressing the technical, and more important now, non technical issues". So the WEF/ICANN/CGIbr initiative seems to be a place where every one can have his own impression of achieving his own dream. Cool. More seriously, the 750 or so corporations members of the WEF are not jumping in the Sao Paulo legacy for nothing - their membership fees are expensive enough to get a return on investment. It would be naive to think they come to the beauty of discussing trends and fashion in IG conversation. Of course, a few cynics might enjoy playing poker, even though, and I appreciate Lee's questioning on that, there is little doubt that nobody will ever jump out of that elitist club once onboard. Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different participants. So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy (overlooking the Leman Lake and located in the most wealthy suburbs of Geneva), should for once, Civil Society shows some unity, strength and courage assuming its best bets are ethical values, if not pragmatic democratic values - and in that regard, acknowledges the serious concerns seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): - what are the concrete points you do not feel comfortable with regarding the initiative - reference to your own critic and personal deeply conflicted approach of it. It would be fair to remind us on that. - how will the BB list will proceed to come to a conclusion between pro and cons? - what is your understanding of what is the WEF/ICANN/CGIbr initiative about to concretely be? A venture to fund specific programs or projects? A coordination office for existing IG related institutions or entities? A driver for what Chehahé sees as a Sao Paulo roadmap? Do you have a link for this roadmap to share with us? - which other civil society representatives have endorsed the initiative according to your knowledge apart from CGIbr and HRW? Not sure Afilias and CIRA are to be considered as civil society as they are in the registry business. - how can we make a difference between an exaggerated critic and not an exaggerated critic? In other words, how far can we be critical of that initiative? How can one critic of the initiative not be considered as specious, as so far ISOC and JNC have failed in your eyes to express "fair" critics. - are you in agreement with the naming of the WEF/ICANN/CIGbr initiative: The NetMundial Initiative, a "continuation of Sao Paulo to implement the roadmap with CGIbr in the leadership position, ICANN being a partner on a lower level, and the WEF a collaborator" according to Wolfgang Keinwächter (ICANN) see email Nov 4 *. Answers would certainly be helpful in order to have a fruitful conversation in this thread. Thanks JC * WK Full quote : "My understanding is that the NMI is now a "continuation" of Sao Paulo´s NetMundial (to implement the Roadmap as the main mandate) with cgi.br in the leadership position (easier after Rousseff won the election and Virgilio remains the key leader). ICANN will continue - on a lower level - to be a partner and the WEF will "collaborate" with the NMI (having its own projects independent from NMI). But lets wait for the Webinar. Virgilio will explain the outcome from the various consultations in and aftrer LA." Wolfgang Le 18 nov. 2014 à 04:53, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : > By now everyone will have read from previous threads that ISOC and the Just Net Coalition (JNC) have both decided not to participate in the NETmundial Initiative, and you may have also have read some false information that Best Bits and other networks represented on the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) *have* decided to participate. As Ian Peter's clarifying message setting out the truth of the matter should have made clear, that is *not* the case. All that has happened is that the we have obtained as much assurance as we can that *if* we decide to participate, then the Secretariat (ICANN, WEF and CGI.br) will accept our self-nomination process rather than choosing civil society representatives independently. > > Now we turn to you, our communities, to provide us with guidance about whether to proceed further or not. Some views have already been expressed pro and con. I have been (and remain) publicly critical about the NETmundial Initiative, but on the other hand the reasoning ISOC and JNC give for boycotting it is rather specious, because they characterise the initiative as being something that it doesn't purport to be - ie. a single central policy-making body for Internet governance. This is an alarmist critique that turns the NETmundial Initiative into an exaggerated ITU-style bogeyman. > > So whilst there is certainly room for disagreement about whether we should bestow the benefit of our participation on the Initiative (I remain deeply conflicted about this), let's decide on the basis of factual pro and con arguments rather than oversimplifications about the 1% taking over the Internet. Also note that a few civil society representatives, including Human Rights Watch, have endorsed it already and are featured on the carousel message on the front page of netmundial.org. > > So what do people think? If you haven't already shared your views, please do so on this thread, within the next few days if possible. > > -- > 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 :: > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Nov 18 03:08:59 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:38:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE In-Reply-To: <7CD37A0771344819B39A327EA5AEBFC4@Toshiba> References: <96408CD9A453499FB72972C951A44766@Toshiba> <546AD542.20702@itforchange.net> <7CD37A0771344819B39A327EA5AEBFC4@Toshiba> Message-ID: <546AFE9B.2060502@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 18 November 2014 11:07 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Not really Parminder. As you know there are differing opinions within > civil society about this, and without clarity as regards how an > involvement with NMI would work – information we are seeking – it is > not possible for everyone to make an informed decision. I see (1) readiness in general to go with the NM Initiative, given conditions of CS nomination are met, and (2) actual process and agreement (or not) of CSCG's role in CS nominees, as two different issues. JNC statement only say that most CS group seem to have agreed to (1). Is this incorrect.... > Such matters as whether the NMI would want to maintain a right of veto > over selections suggested by CSCG would not matter to those who oppose > involvement under any circumstances, but would be significant factors > as regards considering involvement for others. Exactly, that is my point. So, obviously, other CS groups do not oppose the NMI as such, other than perhaps possible differences on CS nominations to its coordination committee. What we say in JNC's statement, and the note 4 explaining the basis of our assertion is very clear "**For example, on the basis of positive views expressed by ... (so and so organisations) .., the chair of the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) has sent a very positive letter to NMI offering to organize a selection process for civil society representatives for NMI's coordination committee..." Is this statement untrue? Meanwhile, since it was an official letter written by you as CSCG head to WEF/ NMI , on basis on the above mentioned positive views of concerned CS organisations, why do you not just make that letter public and people can make their own judgement. We obviously cannot write our statements exactly, as for instance Jeremy would want us to.... However, we write what we write responsibly and with full justification. Please make the mentioned letter public to NMI/ WEF, and, as always, we are ready for a full discussion on this issue of who has expressed what view, and undertook what actions, and implications there of. It is really our not problem is some of the CS members might now be re considering their views on the NMI issue - in face of the recent statements, or otherwise... As you will see from the text, this was precisely the purpose of JNC's statement, and we would be happy to see movement in the direction of achieving this purpose. We really want CS groups to reconsider their position and refuse to endorse the NM Initiative. parminder > Ian > *From:* parminder > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 18, 2014 4:12 PM > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET > MUNDIAL INITIATIVE > On Tuesday 18 November 2014 04:23 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE. >> Please note that Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group >> (CSCG) participation in the new Net Mundial initiative is still under >> consideration. CSCG has written to the NMI Secretariat and >> Transitional Council suggesting that it play a co-ordinating role in >> the selection of civil society representatives in a coordinated >> bottom up manner, rather than these decisions being made by the >> Transitional Council (which has no civil society representation). >> This is still under discussion; however, we do not yet have a >> proposal with sufficient clarity for member coalitions to be able to >> decide on participation or not. While Just Net Coalition (JNC) has >> already determined it will not participate, other members are waiting >> for clarity on our proposal for a bottom up and inclusive procedure >> for determining civil society representatives before making any final >> decisions on participation. > > Does this not constitute an in principle agreement to participate by > the concerned CS actors, if NMI guys agrees to CSCG doing CS > nominations, or something close to that... Further, Is Fadi wrong in > taking that impression and making it public... I think you need to > make the facts such more clear and transparent about what is happening > within the CSCG, what decisions and actions it takes and so on... > parminder > >> Our letter to the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council in no way >> signifies that any or all CS organisations have made a final decision >> on whether to engage with the NMI in a formal selection process or to >> participate in the NMI process. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Nov 18 03:12:47 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:42:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE In-Reply-To: <546AFE9B.2060502@itforchange.net> References: <96408CD9A453499FB72972C951A44766@Toshiba> <546AD542.20702@itforchange.net> <7CD37A0771344819B39A327EA5AEBFC4@Toshiba> <546AFE9B.2060502@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <546AFF7F.5050409@itforchange.net> This is exactly like, one party proposes marriage, and the other show great enthusiasm and starts discussing wedding arrangements, and at a later point says, well, of course, I never really meant to say yes to the proposal. .. parminder On Tuesday 18 November 2014 01:38 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 18 November 2014 11:07 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Not really Parminder. As you know there are differing opinions within >> civil society about this, and without clarity as regards how an >> involvement with NMI would work – information we are seeking – it is >> not possible for everyone to make an informed decision. > > I see (1) readiness in general to go with the NM Initiative, given > conditions of CS nomination are met, and (2) actual process and > agreement (or not) of CSCG's role in CS nominees, as two different issues. > > JNC statement only say that most CS group seem to have agreed to (1). > Is this incorrect.... > >> Such matters as whether the NMI would want to maintain a right of >> veto over selections suggested by CSCG would not matter to those who >> oppose involvement under any circumstances, but would be significant >> factors as regards considering involvement for others. > > Exactly, that is my point. So, obviously, other CS groups do not > oppose the NMI as such, other than perhaps possible differences on CS > nominations to its coordination committee. What we say in JNC's > statement, and the note 4 explaining the basis of our assertion is > very clear > > "**For example, on the basis of positive views expressed by ... (so > and so organisations) .., the chair of the Civil Society Coordination > Group (CSCG) has sent a very positive letter to NMI offering to > organize a selection process for civil society representatives for > NMI's coordination committee..." > > Is this statement untrue? > > Meanwhile, since it was an official letter written by you as CSCG head > to WEF/ NMI , on basis on the above mentioned positive views of > concerned CS organisations, why do you not just make that letter > public and people can make their own judgement. > > We obviously cannot write our statements exactly, as for instance > Jeremy would want us to.... However, we write what we write > responsibly and with full justification. Please make the mentioned > letter public to NMI/ WEF, and, as always, we are ready for a full > discussion on this issue of who has expressed what view, and undertook > what actions, and implications there of. > > It is really our not problem is some of the CS members might now be > re considering their views on the NMI issue - in face of the recent > statements, or otherwise... As you will see from the text, this was > precisely the purpose of JNC's statement, and we would be happy to see > movement in the direction of achieving this purpose. We really want CS > groups to reconsider their position and refuse to endorse the NM > Initiative. > > parminder >> Ian >> *From:* parminder >> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 18, 2014 4:12 PM >> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN >> NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE >> On Tuesday 18 November 2014 04:23 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE. >>> Please note that Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination >>> Group (CSCG) participation in the new Net Mundial initiative is >>> still under consideration. CSCG has written to the NMI Secretariat >>> and Transitional Council suggesting that it play a co-ordinating >>> role in the selection of civil society representatives in a >>> coordinated bottom up manner, rather than these decisions being made >>> by the Transitional Council (which has no civil society >>> representation). This is still under discussion; however, we do not >>> yet have a proposal with sufficient clarity for member coalitions to >>> be able to decide on participation or not. While Just Net Coalition >>> (JNC) has already determined it will not participate, other members >>> are waiting for clarity on our proposal for a bottom up and >>> inclusive procedure for determining civil society representatives >>> before making any final decisions on participation. >> >> Does this not constitute an in principle agreement to participate by >> the concerned CS actors, if NMI guys agrees to CSCG doing CS >> nominations, or something close to that... Further, Is Fadi wrong in >> taking that impression and making it public... I think you need to >> make the facts such more clear and transparent about what is >> happening within the CSCG, what decisions and actions it takes and so >> on... parminder >> >>> Our letter to the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council in no >>> way signifies that any or all CS organisations have made a final >>> decision on whether to engage with the NMI in a formal selection >>> process or to participate in the NMI process. >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Tue Nov 18 03:15:38 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:15:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Second African School on IG Message-ID: <546B002A.7050209@apc.org> Dear all Some of you will be there in person, but for those of you will not be there, you can find out more about the Second African School on IG which will start in Mauritius later this week. Best Anriette http://african-ig-school.events.apc.org/ -- ````````````````````````````````` anriette esterhuysen executive director association for progressive communications po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa anriette at apc.org www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr Tue Nov 18 03:31:15 2014 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 08:31:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] Second African School on IG In-Reply-To: <546B002A.7050209@apc.org> Message-ID: <1416299475.29408.YahooMailIosMobile@web28704.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Tue Nov 18 04:57:51 2014 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:57:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Jean Christophe Compared to the questions proposed to BB, what is the deadline? In my case, I have to consult colleagues and collect their opinions. 2014-11-18 8:49 GMT+01:00 Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal < jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>: > Jeremy, > > I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a > personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on > civil society colleagues" you are referring to, as I see no such thing in > the JNC statement - and would feel most uncomfortable would it be so. I > would say JNC brings some interesting and documented facts and thoughtful > perspective, even though the BestBits is never either quoted or named in > this statement. As per your email recommendation having not yet shared my > views on this WEF/ICANN/CGIbr topic, here are some thoughts. > > The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen to > non JNC members: > - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread Internet > Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew Fitzgerald > about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB Initiative) > - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some quarters > to create a "UN Security Council" > - Eileen Donahoe, former US Ambassador at the Human Rights Council, now at > HRW: "There is an urgent need for new thinking about distributed, > multistakeholder governance" > - Virgilio Almeida, CGIbr, National Secretary for IT policies, Brazil: > "... A platform that is going to be oriented to solve Internet Governance > Issues..." > - Richard Samans, Managing Director, WEF: "Internet Governance issues are > at the top in our industry community conversations, and this is no surprise > as it has become one of the hottest political issues of our times... well > beyond the technical issues our partner, ICANN, has been dealing for many > many years." > - Fadi Chehadé: "For the first time in Sao Paulo, the Internet community > agreed on a set of common principles and a roadmap in order to energize our > work together, addressing the technical, and more important now, non > technical issues". > > So the WEF/ICANN/CGIbr initiative seems to be a place where every one can > have his own impression of achieving his own dream. Cool. More seriously, > the 750 or so corporations members of the WEF are not jumping in the Sao > Paulo legacy for nothing - their membership fees are expensive enough to > get a return on investment. It would be naive to think they come to the > beauty of discussing trends and fashion in IG conversation. Of course, a > few cynics might enjoy playing poker, even though, and I appreciate Lee's > questioning on that, there is little doubt that nobody will ever jump out > of that elitist club once onboard. > > Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC > statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to > participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of > the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what was > stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different > participants. So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that > convoy (overlooking the Leman Lake and located in the most wealthy > suburbs of Geneva), should for once, Civil Society shows some unity, > strength and courage assuming its best bets are ethical values, if not > pragmatic democratic values - and in that regard, acknowledges the serious > concerns seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by > the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. > > By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): > - what are the concrete points you do not feel comfortable with regarding > the initiative - reference to your own critic and personal deeply > conflicted approach of it. It would be fair to remind us on that. > - how will the BB list will proceed to come to a conclusion between pro > and cons? > - what is your understanding of what is the WEF/ICANN/CGIbr initiative > about to concretely be? A venture to fund specific programs or projects? A > coordination office for existing IG related institutions or entities? A > driver for what Chehahé sees as a Sao Paulo roadmap? Do you have a link for > this roadmap to share with us? > - which other civil society representatives have endorsed the initiative > according to your knowledge apart from CGIbr and HRW? Not sure Afilias and > CIRA are to be considered as civil society as they are in the registry > business. > - how can we make a difference between an exaggerated critic and not an > exaggerated critic? In other words, how far can we be critical of that > initiative? How can one critic of the initiative not be considered as > specious, as so far ISOC and JNC have failed in your eyes to express "fair" > critics. > - are you in agreement with the naming of the WEF/ICANN/CIGbr initiative: > The NetMundial Initiative, a "continuation of Sao Paulo to implement the > roadmap with CGIbr in the leadership position, ICANN being a partner on a *lower > level*, and the WEF a *collaborator*" according to Wolfgang Keinwächter > (ICANN) see email Nov 4 *. > > Answers would certainly be helpful in order to have a fruitful > conversation in this thread. > > Thanks > JC > > > * WK Full quote : "My understanding is that the NMI is now a > "continuation" of Sao Paulo´s NetMundial (to implement the Roadmap as the > main mandate) with cgi.br in the leadership position (easier after > Rousseff won the election and Virgilio remains the key leader). ICANN will > continue - on a lower level - to be a partner and the WEF will > "collaborate" with the NMI (having its own projects independent from NMI). > But lets wait for the Webinar. Virgilio will explain the outcome from the > various consultations in and aftrer LA." > > Wolfgang > > > > > > > Le 18 nov. 2014 à 04:53, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : > > By now everyone will have read from previous threads that ISOC and the > Just Net Coalition (JNC) have both decided not to participate in the > NETmundial Initiative, and you may have also have read some false > information that Best Bits and other networks represented on the Civil > Society Coordination Group (CSCG) *have* decided to participate. As Ian > Peter's clarifying message setting out the truth of the matter should have > made clear, that is *not* the case. All that has happened is that the we > have obtained as much assurance as we can that *if* we decide to > participate, then the Secretariat (ICANN, WEF and CGI.br) will accept our > self-nomination process rather than choosing civil society representatives > independently. > > Now we turn to you, our communities, to provide us with guidance about > whether to proceed further or not. Some views have already been expressed > pro and con. I have been (and remain) publicly critical about the > NETmundial Initiative, but on the other hand the reasoning ISOC and JNC > give for boycotting it is rather specious, because they characterise the > initiative as being something that it doesn't purport to be - ie. a single > central policy-making body for Internet governance. This is an alarmist > critique that turns the NETmundial Initiative into an exaggerated ITU-style > bogeyman. > > So whilst there is certainly room for disagreement about whether we should > bestow the benefit of our participation on the Initiative (I remain deeply > conflicted about this), let's decide on the basis of factual pro and con > arguments rather than oversimplifications about the 1% taking over the > Internet. Also note that a few civil society representatives, including > Human Rights Watch, have endorsed it already and are featured on the > carousel message on the front page of netmundial.org. > > So what do people think? If you haven't already shared your views, please > do so on this thread, within the next few days if possible. > > -- > 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 :: > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC* *ICANN/AFRALO Member* *ISOC Member* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Nov 18 05:51:11 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 06:51:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <732EDECA41B2407A922FBA610939E35B@Toshiba> References: <732EDECA41B2407A922FBA610939E35B@Toshiba> Message-ID: Currently the issue of involvement in the Netmundial Initiative is being hotly debated. This is Ian's summary of the arguments to date. Within the IGC are there any particular views on the issue? I ask myself whether civil society has been manoeuvred into a position in which choosing not to be involved becomes not really an option? Looking at Ian's Against list: AGAINST INVOLVEMENT The last thing we need is a corporate takeover of internet governance and this could become that (is it more likely to "become that" if civil society absents itself?) ISOC has withdrawn Participation is strongly opposed by some sections of civil society This initiative has a track record of poor communication (without civil society insistence will it become even worse?) I don't myself have answers to these questions, but I think they need to be asked. There is some information available at https://www.netmundial.org/ Any comments? Deirdre ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ian Peter Date: 18 November 2014 06:31 Subject: Re: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC To: Jeremy Malcolm , Best Bits < bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> At this point of time discussions are going on in a number of forums as regards participation, not just here; and it would be helpful if the debate was about whether to participate or not, not about who said what when. As an aid to this, and perhaps to focus discussion a little, here is a brief summary of some of the arguments for and against that I have seen advanced. Not a complete list, but perhaps this might help some people to understand that other people have perspectives that differ from their own. i would urge people to add their own perspectives to these so that an informed decision is made. FOR INVOLVEMENT With ITU a governments only forum and no real will to change, and IGF as a forum with no power to make recommendations or take decisions and again no will to change, there is no credible venue to initiate action on non technical issues or issues not within the remit of Istar organisations These would include surveillance issues, human rights issues, net neutrality issues, to name a few. The solid commitment to NetMundial principles promised, if carried out in practice, would create a credible and open initiative There is a need for a representative forum capable of moving us forward on a range of issues not covered by existing institutions Participation is strongly supported by some sections of civil society AGAINST INVOLVEMENT The last thing we need is a corporate takeover of internet governance and this could become that ISOC has withdrawn Participation is strongly opposed by some sections of civil society This initiative has a track record of poor communication Ian Peter *From:* Jeremy Malcolm *Sent:* Tuesday, November 18, 2014 2:53 PM *To:* Best Bits *Subject:* [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC By now everyone will have read from previous threads that ISOC and the Just Net Coalition (JNC) have both decided not to participate in the NETmundial Initiative, and you may have also have read some false information that Best Bits and other networks represented on the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) *have* decided to participate. As Ian Peter's clarifying message setting out the truth of the matter should have made clear, that is *not* the case. All that has happened is that the we have obtained as much assurance as we can that *if* we decide to participate, then the Secretariat (ICANN, WEF and CGI.br) will accept our self-nomination process rather than choosing civil society representatives independently. Now we turn to you, our communities, to provide us with guidance about whether to proceed further or not. Some views have already been expressed pro and con. I have been (and remain) publicly critical about the NETmundial Initiative, but on the other hand the reasoning ISOC and JNC give for boycotting it is rather specious, because they characterise the initiative as being something that it doesn't purport to be - ie. a single central policy-making body for Internet governance. This is an alarmist critique that turns the NETmundial Initiative into an exaggerated ITU-style bogeyman. So whilst there is certainly room for disagreement about whether we should bestow the benefit of our participation on the Initiative (I remain deeply conflicted about this), let's decide on the basis of factual pro and con arguments rather than oversimplifications about the 1% taking over the Internet. Also note that a few civil society representatives, including Human Rights Watch, have endorsed it already and are featured on the carousel message on the front page of netmundial.org. So what do people think? If you haven't already shared your views, please do so on this thread, within the next few days if possible. -- 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 :: ------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Tue Nov 18 05:59:48 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:59:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for candidates to IGC co-coordinatorship Message-ID: Dear All, Now that the excitement of the new MAG is over it's time for us at the IGC to have our own election. We need to elect a second Co-coordinator. The results of the elections for new Co-coordinators a year ago gave Mawaki a one year term. As he already suggested at several occasions including during the election last year, he is not in position to serve two more years. In other words, Mawaki does not intend to stand again. We invite members of the IGC to nominate candidates (please check with them first about their willingness to serve), or to nominate themselves as a co-coordinator to serve from 2015-2017. Nominations will be open until 19th December, midnight UTC. Best regards, Mawaki Chango Deirdre Williams IGC Co-coordinators -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 18 06:32:55 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:32:55 +0000 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative Message-ID: Dear All, You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't repeat the background details. In the middle of the night last night, before hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing catch-up with deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, they are willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the NMI Coordination Council. Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership of CSCG member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI process or not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations we've been having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and with the membership of our respective organizations.) After this we should be able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position about our participation in the NMI process. So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be brief. State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement and, if you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you if you could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph (as we just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see what I mean.) Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. Mawaki -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 18 08:04:06 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 14:04:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <915854CC-711C-48FA-92AC-B9014B62EE37@eff.org> References: <546A6801.70707@itforchange.net> <143101d002c4$369f27b0$a3dd7710$@gmail.com> <915854CC-711C-48FA-92AC-B9014B62EE37@eff.org> Message-ID: <20141118140406.036b546d@quill> Jeremy Malcolm (the representative of Best Bits in CSCG) wrote: > Via Norbert I have requested that JNC issue a public apology for > wrongly stating in this article, along with much other dumping on > civil society colleagues, that Best Bits is supporting the NETmundial > Initiative. Before I reply to the substance of this accusation of lying, let me quickly comment on why these facts (about which JNC is being accused of having told a lie) have some importance: In view of the phenomenon which were calling “the caravan for a neo-liberal capture of global governance”, it would in our view be a huge step forward if the support for that could be reduced to those who are willing to publicly admit and defend their support for it. From this perspective, it is a very serious and significant systemic problem in civil society when actions are taken which are in their effect supportive of this “caravan”, but where those who take or explicitly support such action get away with simply disclaiming responsibility, or even claiming that it didn't happen. (By contrast it is a legitimate course of action for any of the concerned parties to admit to having made a mistake, and to consequently change their stance.) Now to the substance of what we're accused of having been untruthful about... The footnote which is referenced in this demand for an apology (and which is the only place where any mention of Best Bits is made) reads in full as follows: For example, on the basis of positive views expressed by APC, BestBits, Diplo and NCSG, the chair of the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) has sent a very positive letter to NMI offering to organize a selection process for civil society representatives for NMI's coordination committee. Until now, only the Just Net Coalition (JNC) has opposed this plan, and JNC will refuse to participate if it goes forward. The other member organizations of CSCG are: Association for Progressive Communications (APC), Best Bits, Civicus, Diplo Foundation, Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG). For context, this footnote is given in support of the assertion that some “sections of civil society currently active in the area of Internet ... have accepted the invitation from global corporate and other elites to participate in the NetMundial Initiative”. I maintain that the concerned letter * is indeed very positive, and that * it offers to organize a selection process for civil society representatives for NMI's coordination committee, and that * it in fact represents acceptance in principle of the fundamental concept of NMI and the invitation to participate. This is certainly how we in JNC read the letter, and it appears that also ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé (one of the recipients) is understanding the letter similarly, as Avri tweeted yesterday: “Fadi, praised the letter from civil society asking to select is own members of the #NMI council and legitimizing the initiative. #igeneva” But it is probably necessary at this point for everyone here to be given the opportunity to be able to make up their minds for themselves on whether, as JNC claims, this letter expresses acceptance in principle of NMI. After all, JNC has in effect been accused of lying. The only way to effectively counteract such an accusation is to present evidence that what we're saying is in fact the truth about these events. JNC will of course be very happy if (as we're in fact suggesting in the statement) now enough CSCG members change their position so that on the basis of that the CSCG position changes, and a corresponding letter is sent which contradicts the initial quite positive stance. We would certainly acknowledge such a welcome development in an updated version of the statement. So here is the text of the concerned letter from CSCG's chair to NMI: """ Dear Virgilio, Fadi and Richard, RE: NETMUNDIAL INITIATIVE COORDINATION COUNCIL I am writing to you on behalf of the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG), in response to your call for nominations for a Coordination Council for the new NetMundial Initiative. I think you all know something of our organisation. We are a “coalition of coalitions” of the major civil society groups working on internet governance issues, formed specifically to ensure a co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside bodies. Our reach through the represented member coalitions (Internet Governance Caucus, Association for Progressive Communications, Diplo Foundation, Just Net Coalition, Best Bits, Civicus, and Non Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN) extends to some thousands of organisations. We provided the nominations for civil society members appointed to various committees for the original NetMundial initiative in Brazil and the 1net initiative, as well as nominations for the recent IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group renewal. A number of us listened in and participated on your webinar last week. We are very pleased to see an effort underway to collaboratively deal with some of the evolving issues in the internet governance arena; and also pleased to see your strong commitment to the NetMundial principles, and to a bottom up process in bringing this into action. We have noted carefully the procedures outlined on your website for nominations, and the commitment to one civil society representative for each of the five regions outlined. You are aware of our concerns, which I am sure you share, that the selection processes be credible, involve stakeholder groups, and, as your nomination process states, “formed through a bottom-up process, inspired by the open and transparent approach employed by the organizers of the São Paulo NETmundial meeting”. We believe this can best be achieved if we work closely with you to ensure that the civil society representation, and involvement in selection of its representatives, is as strong, credible and effective as possible, and make the following suggestions with this end in mind. SUGGESTION ONE Although we could go through a separate nomination process and forward a number of names to you, it seems to us that in the current situation a more workable process would be to encourage suitable civil society people to nominate as per your process, but then work with you at the close of nominations to provide our recommendations on the most suitable candidates. Depending on circumstances, we could give you one recommended name per region, or we could give a maximum of say three suitable names per region, to enable you to consider intra-regional balance across stakeholder groups. We would like your feedback on this option. If we were to follow this process, we would need to receive from you full details of each nomination received for civil society. We could undertake to give completed recommendations within a week of the closing date; ie by December 13. We employ well developed processes for achieving such an outcome in a credible manner and can assure you than necessary confidentiality in dealing with these documents would be maintained. SUGGESTION TWO Additionally, we could have a representative work with you (the transitional committee members) on finalising selections, and writing up the rationale for decisions. We appreciate that if one of us takes up such a role, the deliberations would be subject to complete confidentiality, and this would be a facilitating role to ensure the best possible selections. We would welcome your feedback on this additional option as well. TIME CONSTRAINTS If we are to proceed with one or both of these options, we would need to have your confirmation as to our participation in this manner fairly quickly, so that we can inform our colleagues. Please if possible get back to us this week, or advise when you will be able to respond. We look forward to working with you and to a highly successful collaborative initiative to address some important issues of mutual concern. We would like to see a strong, widely endorsed, and effective civil society presence in developing this initiative, and look forward to working with you to achieve this. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Sincerely, Ian Peter Independent Chair """ Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Nov 18 08:26:51 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 14:26:51 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642895@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thanks Mawaki, As a former Co-Chair of the IGC, I support the involvement of our Caucus in the NMI. I see this as an opportunity to contribute to IG processes towards objectives which has been on the IGC Agenda since ist creation in June 2003: Bridging the digital divide and a human rights based free, open and unfragmented Internet with access for everybody. NMI is a good platform - based on the Sao Paulo principles - to strengthen privacy and right to freedom of expression. Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Mawaki Chango Gesendet: Di 18.11.2014 12:32 An: Internet Governance Betreff: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative Dear All, You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't repeat the background details. In the middle of the night last night, before hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing catch-up with deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, they are willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the NMI Coordination Council. Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership of CSCG member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI process or not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations we've been having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and with the membership of our respective organizations.) After this we should be able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position about our participation in the NMI process. So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be brief. State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement and, if you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you if you could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph (as we just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see what I mean.) Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. Mawaki -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From remmyn at gmail.com Tue Nov 18 08:36:28 2014 From: remmyn at gmail.com (Remmy Nweke) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 14:36:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Mawaki Thanks for this. Please may I ask before responses begin to trend. What do we have to loose if CSCG or IGC has to et CS candidates.This insight may help a greet deal in responses we shall expect. Regards. Remmy Nweke @ITRealms On Tuesday, November 18, 2014, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Dear All, > > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't repeat the > background details. In the middle of the night last night, before hitting > the bed after a long and drawn out day playing catch-up with deadlines, I > saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI Transitional Committee's > reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, they are willing to let the CSCG vet CS > candidates to be part of the NMI Coordination Council. > > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership of CSCG > member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI process or not. I > believe this is the last step in the consultations we've been having (with > NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and with the membership of our > respective organizations.) After this we should be able to give a definite > answer, formulate a definite position about our participation in the NMI > process. > > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be brief. State > your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement and, if you care to > provide us with such, I would be grateful to you if you could keep your > supporting argument in one short paragraph (as we just want to take the > "temperature of the room" if you see what I mean.) > > Thank you for your understanding. > Best regards. > > Mawaki > > > > -- ____ REMMY NWEKE, Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd (publishers of) DigitalSENSE Business News; ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet (Multiple-award winning medium) Published by: DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms [Member, NIRA Executive Board] Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria NDS Forum on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2015 < http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng>- June 5 Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2015 - June 6 @Welcome Centre Hotels. Register now. Email: remnekkv at gmail.com _____________________________________________________________________ *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Tue Nov 18 08:51:47 2014 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 14:51:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <20141118140406.036b546d@quill> References: <546A6801.70707@itforchange.net> <143101d002c4$369f27b0$a3dd7710$@gmail.com> <915854CC-711C-48FA-92AC-B9014B62EE37@eff.org> <20141118140406.036b546d@quill> Message-ID: Hello all, My question becomes increasingly growing: 1. What happens to the NetMundial? 2. NetMundial initiative is different from NetMundial launched in Brazil? 3. All these groupings of civil society are more partisan and exclusive selections. It looks like copineries and friendships circles. I think we should take into account national and regional realities. Whether we talk about IGF or NetMundial we need from considerations of each country because everything is based on some national issues is our continental location. All these debates within civil society suggests a crisis of leadership with all its consequences. What we want exactly? With representation from civil society in UNCTAD, there has been exclusion; for MAG, so many asctuces and in the current situation for NetMundial again and again discriminatory policies. Ultimately, whatever the plurality of civil society, should understand that many plurality of concepts also need? Baudouin 2014-11-18 14:04 GMT+01:00 Norbert Bollow : > Jeremy Malcolm (the representative of Best Bits in CSCG) wrote: > > > Via Norbert I have requested that JNC issue a public apology for > > wrongly stating in this article, along with much other dumping on > > civil society colleagues, that Best Bits is supporting the NETmundial > > Initiative. > > Before I reply to the substance of this accusation of lying, let me > quickly comment on why these facts (about which JNC is being accused of > having told a lie) have some importance: In view of the phenomenon > which were calling “the caravan for a neo-liberal capture of global > governance”, it would in our view be a huge step forward if the support > for that could be reduced to those who are willing to publicly admit > and defend their support for it. From this perspective, it is a very > serious and significant systemic problem in civil society when actions > are taken which are in their effect supportive of this “caravan”, but > where those who take or explicitly support such action get away with > simply disclaiming responsibility, or even claiming that it didn't > happen. (By contrast it is a legitimate course of action for any of the > concerned parties to admit to having made a mistake, and to consequently > change their stance.) > > Now to the substance of what we're accused of having been untruthful > about... > > The footnote which is referenced in this demand for an apology (and > which is the only place where any mention of Best Bits is made) reads in > full as follows: > > For example, on the basis of positive views expressed by APC, > BestBits, Diplo and NCSG, the chair of the Civil Society Coordination > Group (CSCG) has sent a very positive letter to NMI offering to > organize a selection process for civil society representatives for > NMI's coordination committee. Until now, only the Just Net Coalition > (JNC) has opposed this plan, and JNC will refuse to participate if it > goes forward. The other member organizations of CSCG are: Association > for Progressive Communications (APC), Best Bits, Civicus, Diplo > Foundation, Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), Non-Commercial > Stakeholders Group (NCSG). > > For context, this footnote is given in support of the assertion that > some “sections of civil society currently active in the area of Internet > ... have accepted the invitation from global corporate and other > elites to participate in the NetMundial Initiative”. > > I maintain that the concerned letter > > * is indeed very positive, and that > > * it offers to organize a selection process for civil society > representatives for NMI's coordination committee, and that > > * it in fact represents acceptance in principle of the fundamental > concept of NMI and the invitation to participate. > > This is certainly how we in JNC read the letter, and it appears that > also ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé (one of the recipients) is understanding > the letter similarly, as Avri tweeted yesterday: “Fadi, praised the > letter from civil society asking to select is own members of the #NMI > council and legitimizing the initiative. #igeneva” > > But it is probably necessary at this point for everyone here to be > given the opportunity to be able to make up their minds for themselves > on whether, as JNC claims, this letter expresses acceptance in > principle of NMI. > > After all, JNC has in effect been accused of lying. The only way to > effectively counteract such an accusation is to present evidence that > what we're saying is in fact the truth about these events. > > JNC will of course be very happy if (as we're in fact suggesting in the > statement) now enough CSCG members change their position so that on the > basis of that the CSCG position changes, and a corresponding letter is > sent which contradicts the initial quite positive stance. We would > certainly acknowledge such a welcome development in an updated version > of the statement. > > So here is the text of the concerned letter from CSCG's chair to NMI: > > """ > Dear Virgilio, Fadi and Richard, > > RE: NETMUNDIAL INITIATIVE COORDINATION COUNCIL > > I am writing to you on behalf of the Internet Governance Civil > Society Coordination Group (CSCG), in response to your call for > nominations for a Coordination Council for the new NetMundial > Initiative. > > I think you all know something of our organisation. We are a > “coalition of coalitions” of the major civil society groups working > on internet governance issues, formed specifically to ensure a > co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to > making civil society appointments to outside bodies. > > Our reach through the represented member coalitions (Internet > Governance Caucus, Association for Progressive Communications, > Diplo Foundation, Just Net Coalition, Best Bits, Civicus, and Non > Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN) extends to some thousands > of organisations. We provided the nominations for civil society > members appointed to various committees for the original NetMundial > initiative in Brazil and the 1net initiative, as well as > nominations for the recent IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group > renewal. > > A number of us listened in and participated on your webinar last > week. We are very pleased to see an effort underway to > collaboratively deal with some of the evolving issues in the > internet governance arena; and also pleased to see your strong > commitment to the NetMundial principles, and to a bottom up process > in bringing this into action. > > We have noted carefully the procedures outlined on your website for > nominations, and the commitment to one civil society representative > for each of the five regions outlined. You are aware of our > concerns, which I am sure you share, that the selection processes > be credible, involve stakeholder groups, and, as your nomination > process states, “formed through a bottom-up process, inspired by > the open and transparent approach employed by the organizers of the > São Paulo NETmundial meeting”. > > We believe this can best be achieved if we work closely with you to > ensure that the civil society representation, and involvement in > selection of its representatives, is as strong, credible and > effective as possible, and make the following suggestions with this > end in mind. > > SUGGESTION ONE > > Although we could go through a separate nomination process and > forward a number of names to you, it seems to us that in the > current situation a more workable process would be to encourage > suitable civil society people to nominate as per your process, but > then work with you at the close of nominations to provide our > recommendations on the most suitable candidates. Depending on > circumstances, we could give you one recommended name per region, > or we could give a maximum of say three suitable names per region, > to enable you to consider intra-regional balance across stakeholder > groups. > > We would like your feedback on this option. If we were to follow > this process, we would need to receive from you full details of > each nomination received for civil society. We could undertake to > give completed recommendations within a week of the closing date; > ie by December 13. We employ well developed processes for achieving > such an outcome in a credible manner and can assure you than > necessary confidentiality in dealing with these documents would be > maintained. > > SUGGESTION TWO > > Additionally, we could have a representative work with you (the > transitional committee members) on finalising selections, and > writing up the rationale for decisions. We appreciate that if one > of us takes up such a role, the deliberations would be subject to > complete confidentiality, and this would be a facilitating role to > ensure the best possible selections. We would welcome your feedback > on this additional option as well. > > TIME CONSTRAINTS > > If we are to proceed with one or both of these options, we would > need to have your confirmation as to our participation in this > manner fairly quickly, so that we can inform our colleagues. Please > if possible get back to us this week, or advise when you will be > able to respond. > > We look forward to working with you and to a highly successful > collaborative initiative to address some important issues of mutual > concern. We would like to see a strong, widely endorsed, and > effective civil society presence in developing this initiative, and > look forward to working with you to achieve this. > > Thank you in advance for your cooperation. > > Sincerely, > > Ian Peter > Independent Chair > """ > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC* *ICANN/AFRALO Member* *ISOC Member* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Tue Nov 18 08:55:46 2014 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 14:55:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My question becomes increasingly growing: 1. What happens to the NetMundial? 2. NetMundial initiative is different from NetMundial launched in Brazil? 3. All these groupings of civil society are more partisan and exclusive selections. It looks like copineries and friendships circles. I think we should take into account national and regional realities. Whether we talk or IGF NetMundial we need from considerations of each country because everything is based on some national issues is our continental location. All these debates within civil society suggests a crisis of leadership with all its consequences. What we want exactly? With representation from civil society in UNCTAD, there has been exclusion; for MAG, so many asctuces and in the current situation for NetMundial again and again discriminatory policies. Ultimately, whatever the plurality of civil society, should understand that many plurality of concepts also need? 2014-11-18 12:32 GMT+01:00 Mawaki Chango : > Dear All, > > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't repeat the > background details. In the middle of the night last night, before hitting > the bed after a long and drawn out day playing catch-up with deadlines, I > saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI Transitional Committee's > reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, they are willing to let the CSCG vet CS > candidates to be part of the NMI Coordination Council. > > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership of CSCG > member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI process or not. I > believe this is the last step in the consultations we've been having (with > NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and with the membership of our > respective organizations.) After this we should be able to give a definite > answer, formulate a definite position about our participation in the NMI > process. > > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be brief. State > your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement and, if you care to > provide us with such, I would be grateful to you if you could keep your > supporting argument in one short paragraph (as we just want to take the > "temperature of the room" if you see what I mean.) > > Thank you for your understanding. > Best regards. > > 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 > > -- *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC* *ICANN/AFRALO Member* *ISOC Member* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Nov 18 08:59:10 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:29:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642895@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642895@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Fully agree with Wolfgang here Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:56 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > Thanks Mawaki, > > As a former Co-Chair of the IGC, I support the involvement of our Caucus > in the NMI. I see this as an opportunity to contribute to IG processes > towards objectives which has been on the IGC Agenda since ist creation in > June 2003: Bridging the digital divide and a human rights based free, open > and unfragmented Internet with access for everybody. NMI is a good platform > - based on the Sao Paulo principles - to strengthen privacy and right to > freedom of expression. > > Wolfgang > > > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Mawaki Chango > Gesendet: Di 18.11.2014 12:32 > An: Internet Governance > Betreff: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation > in NETmundial Initiative > > Dear All, > > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't repeat the > background details. In the middle of the night last night, before hitting > the bed after a long and drawn out day playing catch-up with deadlines, I > saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI Transitional Committee's > reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, they are willing to let the CSCG vet CS > candidates to be part of the NMI Coordination Council. > > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership of CSCG > member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI process or not. I > believe this is the last step in the consultations we've been having (with > NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and with the membership of our > respective organizations.) After this we should be able to give a definite > answer, formulate a definite position about our participation in the NMI > process. > > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be brief. State > your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement and, if you care to > provide us with such, I would be grateful to you if you could keep your > supporting argument in one short paragraph (as we just want to take the > "temperature of the room" if you see what I mean.) > > Thank you for your understanding. > Best regards. > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Tue Nov 18 09:02:57 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 22:02:57 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Second African School on IG In-Reply-To: <546B002A.7050209@apc.org> References: <546B002A.7050209@apc.org> Message-ID: <5A88E61B-D26C-4AEC-AE9F-4B990626C747@difference.com.au> I hope it goes well, I very much enjoyed being a very small part of it in 2013. David On 18 Nov 2014, at 4:15 pm, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > Some of you will be there in person, but for those of you will not be there, you can find out more about the Second African School on IG which will start in Mauritius later this week. > > Best > > Anriette > > http://african-ig-school.events.apc.org/ > > -- > ````````````````````````````````` > anriette esterhuysen > executive director > association for progressive communications > po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa > anriette at apc.org > www.apc.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Nov 18 09:08:54 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:08:54 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative References: <546A6801.70707@itforchange.net> <143101d002c4$369f27b0$a3dd7710$@gmail.com> <915854CC-711C-48FA-92AC-B9014B62EE37@eff.org> <20141118140406.036b546d@quill> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164289A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> I see NMI as an initiative which moves forward with innovative policy ideas into still unknown territory. One recommendation of NetMundial in Sau Paulo was to encourage the formation of national multistakeholder Internet Governance platforms which will help to deals with the local Internet Governance issues, taking into account the global and regional discussions. Zhis wold be a concret step where CS can ans has to become a driving force. NMI is a good opportunity a. to help the launch of such national platforms and b. to link them together in a decentralized and diversified "Internet Governance Web" which is based on the local realities, needs and challenges. Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Baudouin Schombe Gesendet: Di 18.11.2014 14:51 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow Cc: <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative Hello all, My question becomes increasingly growing: 1. What happens to the NetMundial? 2. NetMundial initiative is different from NetMundial launched in Brazil? 3. All these groupings of civil society are more partisan and exclusive selections. It looks like copineries and friendships circles. I think we should take into account national and regional realities. Whether we talk about IGF or NetMundial we need from considerations of each country because everything is based on some national issues is our continental location. All these debates within civil society suggests a crisis of leadership with all its consequences. What we want exactly? With representation from civil society in UNCTAD, there has been exclusion; for MAG, so many asctuces and in the current situation for NetMundial again and again discriminatory policies. Ultimately, whatever the plurality of civil society, should understand that many plurality of concepts also need? Baudouin 2014-11-18 14:04 GMT+01:00 Norbert Bollow : > Jeremy Malcolm (the representative of Best Bits in CSCG) wrote: > > > Via Norbert I have requested that JNC issue a public apology for > > wrongly stating in this article, along with much other dumping on > > civil society colleagues, that Best Bits is supporting the NETmundial > > Initiative. > > Before I reply to the substance of this accusation of lying, let me > quickly comment on why these facts (about which JNC is being accused of > having told a lie) have some importance: In view of the phenomenon > which were calling "the caravan for a neo-liberal capture of global > governance", it would in our view be a huge step forward if the support > for that could be reduced to those who are willing to publicly admit > and defend their support for it. From this perspective, it is a very > serious and significant systemic problem in civil society when actions > are taken which are in their effect supportive of this "caravan", but > where those who take or explicitly support such action get away with > simply disclaiming responsibility, or even claiming that it didn't > happen. (By contrast it is a legitimate course of action for any of the > concerned parties to admit to having made a mistake, and to consequently > change their stance.) > > Now to the substance of what we're accused of having been untruthful > about... > > The footnote which is referenced in this demand for an apology (and > which is the only place where any mention of Best Bits is made) reads in > full as follows: > > For example, on the basis of positive views expressed by APC, > BestBits, Diplo and NCSG, the chair of the Civil Society Coordination > Group (CSCG) has sent a very positive letter to NMI offering to > organize a selection process for civil society representatives for > NMI's coordination committee. Until now, only the Just Net Coalition > (JNC) has opposed this plan, and JNC will refuse to participate if it > goes forward. The other member organizations of CSCG are: Association > for Progressive Communications (APC), Best Bits, Civicus, Diplo > Foundation, Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), Non-Commercial > Stakeholders Group (NCSG). > > For context, this footnote is given in support of the assertion that > some "sections of civil society currently active in the area of Internet > ... have accepted the invitation from global corporate and other > elites to participate in the NetMundial Initiative". > > I maintain that the concerned letter > > * is indeed very positive, and that > > * it offers to organize a selection process for civil society > representatives for NMI's coordination committee, and that > > * it in fact represents acceptance in principle of the fundamental > concept of NMI and the invitation to participate. > > This is certainly how we in JNC read the letter, and it appears that > also ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé (one of the recipients) is understanding > the letter similarly, as Avri tweeted yesterday: "Fadi, praised the > letter from civil society asking to select is own members of the #NMI > council and legitimizing the initiative. #igeneva" > > But it is probably necessary at this point for everyone here to be > given the opportunity to be able to make up their minds for themselves > on whether, as JNC claims, this letter expresses acceptance in > principle of NMI. > > After all, JNC has in effect been accused of lying. The only way to > effectively counteract such an accusation is to present evidence that > what we're saying is in fact the truth about these events. > > JNC will of course be very happy if (as we're in fact suggesting in the > statement) now enough CSCG members change their position so that on the > basis of that the CSCG position changes, and a corresponding letter is > sent which contradicts the initial quite positive stance. We would > certainly acknowledge such a welcome development in an updated version > of the statement. > > So here is the text of the concerned letter from CSCG's chair to NMI: > > """ > Dear Virgilio, Fadi and Richard, > > RE: NETMUNDIAL INITIATIVE COORDINATION COUNCIL > > I am writing to you on behalf of the Internet Governance Civil > Society Coordination Group (CSCG), in response to your call for > nominations for a Coordination Council for the new NetMundial > Initiative. > > I think you all know something of our organisation. We are a > "coalition of coalitions" of the major civil society groups working > on internet governance issues, formed specifically to ensure a > co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to > making civil society appointments to outside bodies. > > Our reach through the represented member coalitions (Internet > Governance Caucus, Association for Progressive Communications, > Diplo Foundation, Just Net Coalition, Best Bits, Civicus, and Non > Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN) extends to some thousands > of organisations. We provided the nominations for civil society > members appointed to various committees for the original NetMundial > initiative in Brazil and the 1net initiative, as well as > nominations for the recent IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group > renewal. > > A number of us listened in and participated on your webinar last > week. We are very pleased to see an effort underway to > collaboratively deal with some of the evolving issues in the > internet governance arena; and also pleased to see your strong > commitment to the NetMundial principles, and to a bottom up process > in bringing this into action. > > We have noted carefully the procedures outlined on your website for > nominations, and the commitment to one civil society representative > for each of the five regions outlined. You are aware of our > concerns, which I am sure you share, that the selection processes > be credible, involve stakeholder groups, and, as your nomination > process states, "formed through a bottom-up process, inspired by > the open and transparent approach employed by the organizers of the > São Paulo NETmundial meeting". > > We believe this can best be achieved if we work closely with you to > ensure that the civil society representation, and involvement in > selection of its representatives, is as strong, credible and > effective as possible, and make the following suggestions with this > end in mind. > > SUGGESTION ONE > > Although we could go through a separate nomination process and > forward a number of names to you, it seems to us that in the > current situation a more workable process would be to encourage > suitable civil society people to nominate as per your process, but > then work with you at the close of nominations to provide our > recommendations on the most suitable candidates. Depending on > circumstances, we could give you one recommended name per region, > or we could give a maximum of say three suitable names per region, > to enable you to consider intra-regional balance across stakeholder > groups. > > We would like your feedback on this option. If we were to follow > this process, we would need to receive from you full details of > each nomination received for civil society. We could undertake to > give completed recommendations within a week of the closing date; > ie by December 13. We employ well developed processes for achieving > such an outcome in a credible manner and can assure you than > necessary confidentiality in dealing with these documents would be > maintained. > > SUGGESTION TWO > > Additionally, we could have a representative work with you (the > transitional committee members) on finalising selections, and > writing up the rationale for decisions. We appreciate that if one > of us takes up such a role, the deliberations would be subject to > complete confidentiality, and this would be a facilitating role to > ensure the best possible selections. We would welcome your feedback > on this additional option as well. > > TIME CONSTRAINTS > > If we are to proceed with one or both of these options, we would > need to have your confirmation as to our participation in this > manner fairly quickly, so that we can inform our colleagues. Please > if possible get back to us this week, or advise when you will be > able to respond. > > We look forward to working with you and to a highly successful > collaborative initiative to address some important issues of mutual > concern. We would like to see a strong, widely endorsed, and > effective civil society presence in developing this initiative, and > look forward to working with you to achieve this. > > Thank you in advance for your cooperation. > > Sincerely, > > Ian Peter > Independent Chair > """ > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC* *ICANN/AFRALO Member* *ISOC Member* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.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 anriette at apc.org Tue Nov 18 09:18:24 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:18:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Second African School on IG In-Reply-To: <5A88E61B-D26C-4AEC-AE9F-4B990626C747@difference.com.au> References: <546B002A.7050209@apc.org> <5A88E61B-D26C-4AEC-AE9F-4B990626C747@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <546B5530.4060405@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Thanks David.. and you will be missed. It was good to have so many people from NCUC there last year. I will also really miss having Carlos Afonso.. the participants really enjoyed learning from the Brazilian experience. On the other hand I am really pleased that we have such a strong contingent of African faculty and resource people joining us this year. We often talk about building capacity in IG, and I generally get irritated when it is used in ways that I find politically patronising (when used as a way of dealing with developing country gripes). We don't spend nearly enough time, either as civil society, or as Africans - in this instance - acknowledging how much capacity we already have. Anriette On 18/11/2014 16:02, David Cake wrote: > I hope it goes well, I very much enjoyed being a very small part of it in 2013. > > David > > On 18 Nov 2014, at 4:15 pm, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> Some of you will be there in person, but for those of you will not be there, you can find out more about the Second African School on IG which will start in Mauritius later this week. >> >> Best >> >> Anriette >> >> http://african-ig-school.events.apc.org/ >> >> -- >> ````````````````````````````````` >> anriette esterhuysen >> executive director >> association for progressive communications >> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa >> anriette at apc.org >> www.apc.org >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits - -- ````````````````````````````````` anriette esterhuysen executive director association for progressive communications po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa anriette at apc.org www.apc.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUa1UwAAoJEH1pB9ymsbAuFFYP/2i2nLaURVRXWGKgqhrINPED ifXVROcaxI9g48jhiCJRFTg9QsbtoK2vm4Ar3p5I0N59t1ZOu1DiTGYaRhf0XCnN 0Rh5POAuBqlFK0SB2zankTn4RItQ0+VFAx9Xoe8CTnShrcMNAiJuctYqLh/NFSXG UgjpggveNLP7CcZRJpJHHO/Oy22BZTl/TSBXmCgN2slrUFpeQFOrYtCZDPY+G5lG 85rexPW/0powDM4pFago+5FrkmkQfD86thoWoteD8pIUsjyHjzsIC+SfkvO9RvWk xCNjrnl5mVVqM3Ey0mRXqztk+4w73X8MjmYM3T9VCkDbinXqCW08nSlOSpZ83rPJ SWMPyaMER0UWqGT8mtrW2QfUimYFLeVsAfTIwYM1zDgG3NWy5P0XKv15Q1Ta1w1k 4gqWjCKM5WSLMx0u7xnwgYDtY3kWLW6/ilPNAlgyu20VWEQOcC3V8dGFiQk37+8t 26eklK43zZWrRRX+qH9m5fzbE5WHUTE0TlxJGeM8hrt0B/k6rC3bqSvyMlrNQD2b UnnDmrA1fvS+jJdZRLm/YlvCxtSFhn6mbFyP34Fwz1ArMYbxjarFMXLUu6S9OJsy Gp9gAcuCZpAu98PWj8N5ZMikVJFWpURq90TRt6UUDufuEE/MjGvkjPXrkvr0+3JO Y+CV2VsL9FHYmQk6QKhX =Qxxa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chlebrum at gmail.com Tue Nov 18 09:20:38 2014 From: chlebrum at gmail.com (chlebrum .) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:20:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "It looks like copineries and friendships circles." That's all... and it's a pity! Chantal Lebrument ​Courriel: c hlebrum at gmail.com Mob: +33 6 8369 5460 2014-11-18 14:55 GMT+01:00 Baudouin Schombe : > My question becomes increasingly growing: > 1. What happens to the NetMundial? > 2. NetMundial initiative is different from NetMundial launched in Brazil? > 3. All these groupings of civil society are more partisan and exclusive > selections. It looks like copineries and friendships circles. > I think we should take into account national and regional realities. Whether > we talk or IGF NetMundial we need from considerations of each country because > everything is based on some national issues is our continental location. > All these debates within civil society suggests a crisis of leadership with > all its consequences. > What we want exactly? > With representation from civil society in UNCTAD, there has been > exclusion; for MAG, so many asctuces and in the current situation for > NetMundial again and again discriminatory policies. > Ultimately, whatever the plurality of civil society, should understand > that many plurality of concepts also need? > > 2014-11-18 12:32 GMT+01:00 Mawaki Chango : > >> Dear All, >> >> You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't repeat the >> background details. In the middle of the night last night, before hitting >> the bed after a long and drawn out day playing catch-up with deadlines, I >> saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI Transitional Committee's >> reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, they are willing to let the CSCG vet CS >> candidates to be part of the NMI Coordination Council. >> >> Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership of CSCG >> member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI process or not. I >> believe this is the last step in the consultations we've been having (with >> NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and with the membership of our >> respective organizations.) After this we should be able to give a definite >> answer, formulate a definite position about our participation in the NMI >> process. >> >> So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be brief. State >> your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement and, if you care to >> provide us with such, I would be grateful to you if you could keep your >> supporting argument in one short paragraph (as we just want to take the >> "temperature of the room" if you see what I mean.) >> >> Thank you for your understanding. >> Best regards. >> >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* > > > *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC* > > *ICANN/AFRALO Member* > *ISOC Member* > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 > email : b.schombe at gmail.com > skype : b.schombe > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jmalcolm at eff.org Tue Nov 18 09:28:07 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 08:28:07 -0600 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <20141118140406.036b546d@quill> References: <546A6801.70707@itforchange.net> <143101d002c4$369f27b0$a3dd7710$@gmail.com> <915854CC-711C-48FA-92AC-B9014B62EE37@eff.org> <20141118140406.036b546d@quill> Message-ID: On Nov 18, 2014, at 7:04 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > After all, JNC has in effect been accused of lying. No, you've been accused of being a dick. If JNC wants to further isolate itself from other civil society factions, cementing the perception that it can't work with anyone else who doesn't share its political ideology, then you're going about it in exactly the right way. Screwing your civil society colleagues has been JNC modus operandi from day 1. Personally it's not the way I prefer to work. Anyway, I think your response tells us all we need to know. Non-apology accepted. -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pimienta at funredes.org Tue Nov 18 09:54:42 2014 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:54:42 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <546A6801.70707@itforchange.net> <143101d002c4$369f27b0$a3dd7710$@gmail.com> <915854CC-711C-48FA-92AC-B9014B62EE37@eff.org> <20141118140406.036b546d@quill> Message-ID: At 10:28 18/11/2014, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >No, you've been accused of being a dick. If JNC wants to further >isolate itself from other civil society factions, cementing the >perception that it can't work with anyone else who doesn't share its >political ideology, then you're going about it in exactly the right >way. Screwing your civil society colleagues has been JNC modus >operandi from day 1. Personally it's not the way I prefer to work. As one of the 33 CSOs members of JNC (plus 24 individual members) you are adressing in your mail, after checking in a dictionnary the meaning of "being a dick" (an expession I read for the first time on my life in a discussion list), I want to insure you I do prefer to be considered as a "dick" by people like you who pretend to impose the "way they prefer to work" (as well as the way they prefer to express, which is an obvious part of the way they prefer to work), than enter in contradiction with the way I perceive what is just and correct as a civil society player. You are making my endorsment to the reference statement still stronger. This personal reaction to your mail has not been coordinated nor discussed with any of my JNC colleagues. The same with my decision to unsubscribe from the bestbit listserv after sending that mail. Daniel Pimienta FUNREDES -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Nov 18 10:13:54 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 07:13:54 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <546A6801.70707@itforchange.net> <143101d002c4$369f27b0$a3dd7710$@gmail.com> <915854CC-711C-48FA-92AC-B9014B62EE37@eff.org> <20141118140406.036b546d@quill> Message-ID: <178e01d00342$454810a0$cfd831e0$@gmail.com> Jeremy, Once you have recovered from your hissyfit I'm sure that you and everyone else reading this with a fair mind will realize that it is you who should be apologizing to the JNC. You seem to have conveniently "forgotten" the letter sent only two days ago by Ian on your and other's in the CSCG's behalf which appears to my untrained eyes to be a very positive endorsement and agreement with the NMI along with a request that negotiations be entered into over some details of process. This letter was prepared one can only assume with your and others of the CSCG (excluding of course the JNC)'s active involvement and was evidently publicly referenced by its co-recipient Fadi. Not being a lawyer I would however suggest that your accusation verges on slander and a public apology would appear to be required. I quote from the letter sent by Ian on behalf of the CSCG to the NMI as circulated by Norbert (emphasis added) You are aware of our concerns, which I am sure you share, that the selection processes be credible, involve stakeholder groups, and, as your nomination process states, "formed through a bottom-up process, .. We believe this can best be achieved if we work closely with you to ensure that the civil society representation, and involvement in selection of its representatives, is as strong, credible and effective as possible. . If we are to proceed with one or both of these options, we would need to have your confirmation as to our participation in this manner fairly quickly, so that we can inform our colleagues. Please if possible get back to us this week, or advise when you will be able to respond. We look forward to working with you and to a highly successful collaborative initiative to address some important issues of mutual concern. We would like to see a strong, widely endorsed, and effective civil society presence in developing this initiative, and look forward to working with you to achieve this. I could be wrong but there doesn't seem to be a lot of ambiguity in this quite enthusiastic endorsement of the overall NMI. Presumably you know how and where to send your apology. M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 6:28 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative On Nov 18, 2014, at 7:04 AM, Norbert Bollow < nb at bollow.ch> wrote: > > After all, JNC has in effect been accused of lying. No, you've been accused of being a dick. If JNC wants to further isolate itself from other civil society factions, cementing the perception that it can't work with anyone else who doesn't share its political ideology, then you're going about it in exactly the right way. Screwing your civil society colleagues has been JNC modus operandi from day 1. Personally it's not the way I prefer to work. Anyway, I think your response tells us all we need to know. Non-apology accepted. -- 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 18 10:25:10 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 07:25:10 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164289A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <546A6801.70707@itforchange.net> <143101d002c4$369f27b0$a3dd7710$@gmail.com> <915854CC-711C-48FA-92AC-B9014B62EE37@eff.org> <20141118140406.036b546d@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164289A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <179f01d00343$d7a21440$86e63cc0$@gmail.com> All presumably under the gentlest but strongest and tightest control from the master spiders sitting at the centre of the web in Washington and Geneva. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 6:09 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Baudouin Schombe; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative I see NMI as an initiative which moves forward with innovative policy ideas into still unknown territory. One recommendation of NetMundial in Sau Paulo was to encourage the formation of national multistakeholder Internet Governance platforms which will help to deals with the local Internet Governance issues, taking into account the global and regional discussions. Zhis wold be a concret step where CS can ans has to become a driving force. NMI is a good opportunity a. to help the launch of such national platforms and b. to link them together in a decentralized and diversified "Internet Governance Web" which is based on the local realities, needs and challenges. Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Baudouin Schombe Gesendet: Di 18.11.2014 14:51 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow Cc: <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative Hello all, My question becomes increasingly growing: 1. What happens to the NetMundial? 2. NetMundial initiative is different from NetMundial launched in Brazil? 3. All these groupings of civil society are more partisan and exclusive selections. It looks like copineries and friendships circles. I think we should take into account national and regional realities. Whether we talk about IGF or NetMundial we need from considerations of each country because everything is based on some national issues is our continental location. All these debates within civil society suggests a crisis of leadership with all its consequences. What we want exactly? With representation from civil society in UNCTAD, there has been exclusion; for MAG, so many asctuces and in the current situation for NetMundial again and again discriminatory policies. Ultimately, whatever the plurality of civil society, should understand that many plurality of concepts also need? Baudouin 2014-11-18 14:04 GMT+01:00 Norbert Bollow : > Jeremy Malcolm (the representative of Best Bits in CSCG) wrote: > > > Via Norbert I have requested that JNC issue a public apology for > > wrongly stating in this article, along with much other dumping on > > civil society colleagues, that Best Bits is supporting the > > NETmundial Initiative. > > Before I reply to the substance of this accusation of lying, let me > quickly comment on why these facts (about which JNC is being accused > of having told a lie) have some importance: In view of the phenomenon > which were calling "the caravan for a neo-liberal capture of global > governance", it would in our view be a huge step forward if the > support for that could be reduced to those who are willing to publicly > admit and defend their support for it. From this perspective, it is a > very serious and significant systemic problem in civil society when > actions are taken which are in their effect supportive of this > "caravan", but where those who take or explicitly support such action > get away with simply disclaiming responsibility, or even claiming that > it didn't happen. (By contrast it is a legitimate course of action for > any of the concerned parties to admit to having made a mistake, and to > consequently change their stance.) > > Now to the substance of what we're accused of having been untruthful > about... > > The footnote which is referenced in this demand for an apology (and > which is the only place where any mention of Best Bits is made) reads > in full as follows: > > For example, on the basis of positive views expressed by APC, > BestBits, Diplo and NCSG, the chair of the Civil Society Coordination > Group (CSCG) has sent a very positive letter to NMI offering to > organize a selection process for civil society representatives for > NMI's coordination committee. Until now, only the Just Net Coalition > (JNC) has opposed this plan, and JNC will refuse to participate if it > goes forward. The other member organizations of CSCG are: Association > for Progressive Communications (APC), Best Bits, Civicus, Diplo > Foundation, Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), Non-Commercial > Stakeholders Group (NCSG). > > For context, this footnote is given in support of the assertion that > some "sections of civil society currently active in the area of > Internet ... have accepted the invitation from global corporate and > other elites to participate in the NetMundial Initiative". > > I maintain that the concerned letter > > * is indeed very positive, and that > > * it offers to organize a selection process for civil society > representatives for NMI's coordination committee, and that > > * it in fact represents acceptance in principle of the fundamental > concept of NMI and the invitation to participate. > > This is certainly how we in JNC read the letter, and it appears that > also ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé (one of the recipients) is understanding > the letter similarly, as Avri tweeted yesterday: "Fadi, praised the > letter from civil society asking to select is own members of the #NMI > council and legitimizing the initiative. #igeneva" > > But it is probably necessary at this point for everyone here to be > given the opportunity to be able to make up their minds for themselves > on whether, as JNC claims, this letter expresses acceptance in > principle of NMI. > > After all, JNC has in effect been accused of lying. The only way to > effectively counteract such an accusation is to present evidence that > what we're saying is in fact the truth about these events. > > JNC will of course be very happy if (as we're in fact suggesting in > the > statement) now enough CSCG members change their position so that on > the basis of that the CSCG position changes, and a corresponding > letter is sent which contradicts the initial quite positive stance. We > would certainly acknowledge such a welcome development in an updated > version of the statement. > > So here is the text of the concerned letter from CSCG's chair to NMI: > > """ > Dear Virgilio, Fadi and Richard, > > RE: NETMUNDIAL INITIATIVE COORDINATION COUNCIL > > I am writing to you on behalf of the Internet Governance Civil > Society Coordination Group (CSCG), in response to your call for > nominations for a Coordination Council for the new NetMundial > Initiative. > > I think you all know something of our organisation. We are a > "coalition of coalitions" of the major civil society groups working > on internet governance issues, formed specifically to ensure a > co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to > making civil society appointments to outside bodies. > > Our reach through the represented member coalitions (Internet > Governance Caucus, Association for Progressive Communications, > Diplo Foundation, Just Net Coalition, Best Bits, Civicus, and Non > Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN) extends to some thousands > of organisations. We provided the nominations for civil society > members appointed to various committees for the original NetMundial > initiative in Brazil and the 1net initiative, as well as > nominations for the recent IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group > renewal. > > A number of us listened in and participated on your webinar last > week. We are very pleased to see an effort underway to > collaboratively deal with some of the evolving issues in the > internet governance arena; and also pleased to see your strong > commitment to the NetMundial principles, and to a bottom up process > in bringing this into action. > > We have noted carefully the procedures outlined on your website for > nominations, and the commitment to one civil society representative > for each of the five regions outlined. You are aware of our > concerns, which I am sure you share, that the selection processes > be credible, involve stakeholder groups, and, as your nomination > process states, "formed through a bottom-up process, inspired by > the open and transparent approach employed by the organizers of the > São Paulo NETmundial meeting". > > We believe this can best be achieved if we work closely with you to > ensure that the civil society representation, and involvement in > selection of its representatives, is as strong, credible and > effective as possible, and make the following suggestions with this > end in mind. > > SUGGESTION ONE > > Although we could go through a separate nomination process and > forward a number of names to you, it seems to us that in the > current situation a more workable process would be to encourage > suitable civil society people to nominate as per your process, but > then work with you at the close of nominations to provide our > recommendations on the most suitable candidates. Depending on > circumstances, we could give you one recommended name per region, > or we could give a maximum of say three suitable names per region, > to enable you to consider intra-regional balance across stakeholder > groups. > > We would like your feedback on this option. If we were to follow > this process, we would need to receive from you full details of > each nomination received for civil society. We could undertake to > give completed recommendations within a week of the closing date; > ie by December 13. We employ well developed processes for achieving > such an outcome in a credible manner and can assure you than > necessary confidentiality in dealing with these documents would be > maintained. > > SUGGESTION TWO > > Additionally, we could have a representative work with you (the > transitional committee members) on finalising selections, and > writing up the rationale for decisions. We appreciate that if one > of us takes up such a role, the deliberations would be subject to > complete confidentiality, and this would be a facilitating role to > ensure the best possible selections. We would welcome your feedback > on this additional option as well. > > TIME CONSTRAINTS > > If we are to proceed with one or both of these options, we would > need to have your confirmation as to our participation in this > manner fairly quickly, so that we can inform our colleagues. Please > if possible get back to us this week, or advise when you will be > able to respond. > > We look forward to working with you and to a highly successful > collaborative initiative to address some important issues of mutual > concern. We would like to see a strong, widely endorsed, and > effective civil society presence in developing this initiative, and > look forward to working with you to achieve this. > > Thank you in advance for your cooperation. > > Sincerely, > > Ian Peter > Independent Chair > """ > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC* *ICANN/AFRALO Member* *ISOC Member* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.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 jac at apcwomen.org Tue Nov 18 10:31:01 2014 From: jac at apcwomen.org (Jac sm Kee) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 23:31:01 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] CS @ MAG & IGF /WSIS+10 meetings in Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com> <5465DE50.9070003@apc.org> Message-ID: <546B6635.3010009@apcwomen.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello everyone, Very proud to be part of a strong CS team for MAG, and looking forward also to working with everyone. I have been travelling and jst catching up with emails now. Tried the doodle, but it's not opening for me. Maybe because the period has ended. Either way, am looking forward to collaboration and discussion and working togetehr. Best, jac On 14/11/2014 18:55, aida mahmutovic wrote: > Thank you Anriette for adding me to this conversation. Please do > count on me in the future. I look forward to our CS collaboration > to come in stronger in next IGF. > > Kind regards to all, aIDA > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > > wrote: > > Very good idea to have a meeting Bill. I have responded to your > Doodle poll. > > Also copying Aida Mahmutovic from One World South East Europe and > John Dada from Fantsuam Foundation and Jac sm Kee who are also new > on the MAG. > > Anriette > > On 14/11/2014 10:54, William Drake wrote: >> Hi >> >> Adding the governance list. >> >> To Ginger’s point: First, please not that tomorrow 15 November >> is the last day to do online registration for the IGF open >> consultation and MAG meeting. After that, getting in may >> require you to arm wrestle the ITU’s praetorian guard. >> https://intgovforum.org/cms/index.php?option=com_jevents&task=icalrepeat.detail&evid=30&Itemid=28&year=2014&month=12&day=01&title=igf-open-consultations-and-mag-meeting&uid=0f4d62692449d836cd076da879ff1f11 >> >> >> Second, Lea has suggested that retiring and incoming CS MAG >> members get together for some updating and brainstorming on the >> current state of play in MAG. I think this would be a really >> good idea, as it has often been difficult in recent years to get >> the CS contingent to strategically collaborate, and we have an >> opportunity to reboot efforts here. This would be particularly >> important with respect to this meeting, which should >> significantly impact whether the IGF takes seriously the >> NETmundial mandate with regard to strengthening the process: >> >> /Improvements should include inter-alia: a. Improved outcomes: >> Improvements can be implemented including creative ways of >> providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of policy >> options; b. Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; c. >> Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the IGF, >> including through a broadened donor base, is essential; d. The >> IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide discussions >> between meetings through intersessional dialogues. A strengthened >> IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both long >> standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the >> identification of possible ways to address them./ >> >> Some of these were key objectives that the IGC promoted since >> 2005 before interest in the IGF dissipated a bit in recent years. >> Now with the NM statement as a platform there’s never been a >> better time to push to make the IGF a bit more focused, useful, >> and hopefully able to draw back into discussion more developing >> country government participants. However it will not be easy as >> there are well organized forces who’d oppose any changes that >> make the IGF more than a talk shop, and the chair is, to put it >> mildly, rather cautious. Hence the current draft agenda for the >> MAG meeting relegates intersessional work and improved outcomes >> to being just one of four topics covered in a three hour session, >> not a promising start. I noted that would not be enough time, >> and received the zen response that we have the time we have (much >> of which is in fact underprogrammed). So if CS cares to push for >> a more focused discussion and an action-oriented IGF, this would >> require coordination. >> >> I believe some people will be arriving arriving the previous >> week, as the CSTD intersessional >> http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=610 is >> currently scheduled to take up the IG mapping exercise and >> WSIS+10 issues the afternoon of Thursday 27 November and all day >> Friday 28th. Monday 1 Dec is the IGF open consultation, 2-3 >> Tues-Wed is the open MAG meeting. >> >> I’ve created a Doodle poll to see who will be around when and >> whether we might get be able to together for some strategizing >> regarding these important meetings. >> >> http://doodle.com/g8kg32fxwxcehnab#table >> >> Best >> >> Bill >> >> PS: WSIS+10 Mavens might want to check out the new SG report, >> http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/CSTD_2014_wsis10review_report_en.pdf >> >> >> >>> >> On Nov 13, 2014, at 8:16 PM, Ginger Paque >> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi everyone, As a new CS member of the MAG, I hope you will all >>> be vocal in letting me/us know what positions we should >>> emphasise for IGF2015, in particular for attending the issues >>> of highest importance for LAC. I/we count on your input and >>> expertise. I like Carolina's idea of a hangout or other meeting >>> to discuss priorities and strategies before the December open >>> consultations and MAG meeting. Cheers, Ginger >>> >>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation >>> >>> /Application deadline approaching: / Master/PGD in >>> Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance option >>> http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD >>> >>> >>> //// >>> >>> *//* >> >> *********************************************** William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation >> Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, >> Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> william.drake at uzh.ch >> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com >> (lists), www.williamdrake.org >> >> *********************************************** >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ You >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> . To unsubscribe or change >> your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -- ````````````````````````````````` anriette esterhuysen executive > director association for progressive communications po box 29755, > melville, 2109, south africa anriette at apc.org > www.apc.org > > > > > -- Aida Mahmutović Programmes Manager Internet Rights and Women's > rights and safety online oneworld-platform for southeast europe > (owpsee) tel/fax: ++387 (0)33 834 899 twitter: @PrincessaAida > > http://www.oneworldsee.org > http://www.oneworldsee.org/civicit http://www.ilab.ba/ > http://www.zenskaposla.ba > http://mapirajnasilje.net > > "Internet Rights are Human Rights" > > > - -- - --------------------------------- Jac sm Kee Manager, Women's Rights Programme Association for Progressive Communications www.apc.org | www.takebackthetech.net | erotics.apc.org Jitsi: jacsmk | Skype: jacsmk | Twitter: @jhybe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUa2Y1AAoJEKpQzmPAS5FmdnwH+gI085EZkBHKI7yR5B7CISxR C0yOGqJZoONhWYeKS8Az8Ppj3pKbtNPo3qCx0KHCXHDkUqthJXKEq9RZnZVqWtvj Mks75YLrN0Q25nx9FdI6+GMmUaZpEb0qtgOEWlmIum6zgpUU8USVng7fed6kMtKm lvPKI8R1XK6p9EPhJcGoMhnBK/wNeERu/Gn/EQ23ptyaVox05EnxFAHXN9EOC0jA 8sOc9szVr1FuEYsxuBHFLU0xZErsIfeQpDLwesnFOv9fq6ibZEYneUBci1180Z++ t3G8qaVBqtkRAW1nrSET9/vrWItI6eUmj1K0jeLePfl24ANjnVBzRkpffcokulE= =n8sO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jac at apcwomen.org Tue Nov 18 11:12:02 2014 From: jac at apcwomen.org (Jac sm Kee) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 00:12:02 +0800 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: <1416252888.70971.YahooMailIosMobile@web28704.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1416252888.70971.YahooMailIosMobile@web28704.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <546B6FD2.3030702@apcwomen.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello everyone, Coming in a little late into the discussion. But this reminds me of the brilliant discussion that we had at the 2013 IGF, where Jeannette spoke of "unblackboxing" multistakeholderism at the GISWatch women's rights edition launch. Recognising that within each stakeholder groups that there are also differences in terms of experiences, needs, priorities and concerns because of inequality and/or discrimination on the basis of social identities or standing. So things like locale, gender, sexualities, disabilities, age, economic power etc, would play a part. The question is how to hold this effectively within a structure of representation that is necessarily limited without fragmenting into endless splits. So not on the basis of 'identity' per se (which can end up fixing you, and also identity is multiple and fluid most times - like youth), but maybe on the basis of work or issues that can be forwarded. And I also agree with Arsene's excellent point that this should be something that is also considered not just by CS, but govt, private sector, technical community etc. Saying that, I am very happy to support an explicit inclusion of disability as a criteria for consideration! Best, jac On 18/11/2014 03:34, Arsene TUNGALI wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > Thanks Everyone for your thoughtful reactions regarding this > sensitive subject, people with disabilities. > > I strongly agree with the idea for inclusion of this particular > stakeholder in the MAG but we may need to find a better approach > while advocating for this. > > My point was that, i don't think we need to 'create' another stake > that we may call, i don't know, People with Disabilities or > Disabled People and have it stand alongside those major stakeholder > groups such as Gov, Civil Society, Business, Academic, etc. > > I believe these are already inclusive at a certain rate. the point > here for me would be to make them more inclusive by making sure for > extance, people with disabilities are being chosen to be part of > one of them. That's what i see we may need to advocate for: > appointing qualitative candidancies with more attention from the > Gov sector or any other sector. > > I always apreciate how my friend and mentor Tracy Hackshaw (sorry > for copying you in here again if you are already on these lists) > is advocating for Small Islands trying by any means to make sure > these countries are represented. I don't think he is advocating for > a particular 'stake' for this group but for them to be represented > (please correct me if i am wrong). > > Also, kudos to Mrs Judy for her work! I have been following and > admire her passion and work in the IGF and even in the Diplo > community. > > In my country, there is a bill that sets a certain percentage of > people with disabilities to be included in the government and other > state institutions. Though this has never been implemented properly > but this can be a good start moving forward. > > Sorry for being long but to be brief, my point is that let's make > a proposal to the MAG that they may need to make sure people with > disabilities are represented (to consider QUALITATIVE candidancies > for the MAG with more attention). > > Would love to hear your thoughts on this Remmy. > > Regards, A ------------------ Arsene Tungali, Executive Director, > Rudi International www.rudiinternational.org > > > Founder, Mabingwa Forum www.mabingwa-forum.com > Phone:+243993810967 > > > ICANN Fellow | ISOC Member | Child Online Protection Advocate | > Youth Leader | Internet Governance. Democratic Republic of Congo > (DRC) > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > At 17 nov. 2014 20:32:40, Remmy Nweke<'remmyn at gmail.com > '> wrote: Thanks Deirdre for the > explanation, > > However, no matter what other opinion, we must be conscious of the > moment and relate it to the reality of things. > > I am convinced that Arsene "alert" is not unfounded but a note for > careful decision making, so no threat meant as far as I can > deduce. > > Therefore, I would like to submit that there is nothing, > absolutely nothing wrong in us advocating inclusion of disability > colleagues in the MAG in real sense of it, after all we say its a > multi-stakeholder, yet the question here remain whether we have > made the multi-stakeholderism a reality or are we still guessing > with semantics? > > Posterity will be on our side for seeing enough reasons to > accommodate this request, after all, for instance, those of us who > have worked closely with Judy Okite, know her capability when it > comes to work despite all odds. I am sure those Ginger Prague > mentioned earlier have been as hardworking as Judy among our pears > for them to merit such mentions and recognition. > > So, our decision must reflect the reality of things with purpose > driven. If there are other request for inclusion as feared by > Arsene, then when we get to the bridge, let us cross it, but for > now. This is proposal is imperative. > > Goodevening from Lagos Remmy > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Deirdre Williams > > wrote: > > Bad choice of words perhaps :-( The concerns I have heard seem to > focus on the possibility that if one group is given special status > as regards representation then several other groups may ask for the > same facility. If you look back in this thread Arsene on 14th was > the first person to express this concern. I think I used > "dangerous" (and please note the "...") because the stability of > the MAG is very important. Therefore it is essential that the > justification for the request should be quite clear and offer no > threat to that stability. > > On 17 November 2014 13:32, Remmy Nweke > wrote: > > Dear Deirdre, So far your submissions have been engaging and > interesting, but I did not understand the aspect of "dangerous" > precedent. > > Is it that our support for recognition of persons with disabilities > in the MAG is a dangerous step or that it would amount to that in > the future? If yes, why? > > We must have at the back of our mind that issues must be treated on > merit, of course, I think this subject herein is merited. > > However, I would appreciate more light/explanation before I can ask > further questions. Thanks Remmy > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Deirdre Williams > > wrote: > > My thought is "go for it". However I think it will be necessary to > establish that "people with disabilities" are a stakeholder group, > rather than an issue. Ginger and I spent an hour discussing that > last night without reaching any resolution. This conversation began > because of Lorena's suggestion to institutionalise the inclusion of > someone representative of "the youth" as happened fortuitously this > year with the selection of Bianca for the MAG. There are other > interests which might also feel the desirability of being given an > "own representative". Can we present a strong enough argument to > persuade the MAG in its wisdom to support the creation of a > somewhat "dangerous" precedent? > > On 17 November 2014 11:07, Judy Okite > wrote: > > Thank you All, > > for your contributions and support, I highly appreciate it! > > Indeed to have the persons with disabilities voices and concerns > raised in these forums is important, but the utmost importance is > to have them involved, be part of the process, be part of the > team. > > Could we have this in signatures and forward it to the secretariat > to have this discussed as part of AOB in the December meeting? > > De, whats your thought? > > Kind Regards, > > > /'Chance Favors the prepared mind'///-Louis Pasteur > > > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Remmy Nweke > wrote: > > Let me add my voice to Deidre's narration. Yes we often forget > those with disabilities and I think now we are reminded of it, > thus imperative we all support the call for inclusion. May be pass > that as a resolution to make or have a rep from them at part of MAG > process. Thus should also apply to member nations too that way we > will no longer forget. Nice day all. Remmy Nweke @ITRealms A member > of DigitalSENSE > > Sent from my Windows Phone > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > From: Deirdre Williams > Sent: 14/11/2014 15:01 To: Internet Governance > Subject: [governance] People with disabilities > > Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the > Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for > people with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last > few years, but she has finished her term of appointment. She made > this suggestion herself at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since > one billion people around the world suffer from some disability, > and the Internet can offer considerable relief for them, they are > the holders of a very significant "stake". Sadly it is easy to > forget if one does not suffer from a disability oneself, which is > why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for these > stakeholders in all such groups. Deirdre > > -- “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 > > > > > > > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" > Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > > > > -- ____ REMMY NWEKE, Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, > DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd (publishers of) DigitalSENSE Business > News; ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet (Multiple-award winning medium) > Published by: DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd Block F1, Shop 133 > Moyosore Aboderin Plaza Bolade > Junction , Oshodi-Lagos M: > 234-8033592762 , 8023122558 , > 8051000475 , T: @ITRealms > [Member, NIRA Executive Board] > Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria > NDS Forum > on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2015 > - June 5 > Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2015 > - June 6 > @Welcome Centre Hotels. Register now. > Email: remnekkv at gmail.com > _____________________________________________________________________ > > *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document > and attachments are confidential and may also be privileged > information. It is intended only for the use of the named > recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the > contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, > please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not > disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor > make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. > > > > > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" > Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > > > > -- ____ REMMY NWEKE, Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, > DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd (publishers of) DigitalSENSE Business > News; ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet (Multiple-award winning medium) > Published by: DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd Block F1, Shop 133 > Moyosore Aboderin Plaza Bolade > Junction , Oshodi-Lagos M: > 234-8033592762 , 8023122558 , > 8051000475 , T: @ITRealms > [Member, NIRA Executive Board] > Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria > NDS Forum > on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2015 > - June 5 > Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2015 > - June 6 > @Welcome Centre Hotels. Register now. > Email: remnekkv at gmail.com > _____________________________________________________________________ > > *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and > attachments are confidential and may also be privileged > information. It is intended only for the use of the named > recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the > contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, > please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not > disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor > make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. > - -- - --------------------------------- Jac sm Kee Manager, Women's Rights Programme Association for Progressive Communications www.apc.org | www.takebackthetech.net | erotics.apc.org Jitsi: jacsmk | Skype: jacsmk | Twitter: @jhybe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUa2/SAAoJEKpQzmPAS5Fm87QH+wber66ABSmFBtG2FVmyo7dv zuUz7rNb+iFDR5Oo/WJbR4s1AGoiGrMaW5NkOPcqRWt/tZnhB5WdbRavC4+3jEtl jW3Qqga8iYsRRwBKBxZfQKameiiBeJz5sJyqAlFWlhvqglP3txdrdd5n0KZSefem X52A98uhfj0GgTqzLnoWYX/sOTAkNqmvV8chp5vrqARsVrK/QBRmGXS/ACeXjhNf ApaKhECDxPFZ0P53Ijxa6RRG0CyEDlmTmZnReDOha0hiTVmVZArRHcsZQCW7xlrv ZFzDjtSQOdMnJRRW5GpDbRcB7VmRS2LXi6y6DqdpssFEegUAXLC5jpuUIri0lRU= =LDtc -----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 jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Tue Nov 18 11:12:11 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:12:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2B310EF9-64FA-447E-8E4F-06AB2E53FEF1@theglobaljournal.net> Dear Baudoin, Sorry for I was following some sessions at the GIP conference, and unable to get back to you in the meantime. I have no authority, nor knowledge, over deadline. Are you referring to the ICANN/WEF/CGIbr initiative to nominate CS participants? So far, Jeremy has not answered to my questions, and it seems like the idea is not to discuss the validity of the initiative but simply say if participants are willing to go along with that initiative and who's going to have the final cut on who from CS is going to be at the table. I am sure someone at BB will be able to give you all the right info Best, JC Le 18 nov. 2014 à 10:57, Baudouin Schombe a écrit : > Hello Jean Christophe > > Compared to the questions proposed to BB, what is the deadline? In my case, I have to consult colleagues and collect their opinions. > > 2014-11-18 8:49 GMT+01:00 Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal : > Jeremy, > > I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on civil society colleagues" you are referring to, as I see no such thing in the JNC statement - and would feel most uncomfortable would it be so. I would say JNC brings some interesting and documented facts and thoughtful perspective, even though the BestBits is never either quoted or named in this statement. As per your email recommendation having not yet shared my views on this WEF/ICANN/CGIbr topic, here are some thoughts. > > The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen to non JNC members: > - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB Initiative) > - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some quarters to create a "UN Security Council" > - Eileen Donahoe, former US Ambassador at the Human Rights Council, now at HRW: "There is an urgent need for new thinking about distributed, multistakeholder governance" > - Virgilio Almeida, CGIbr, National Secretary for IT policies, Brazil: "... A platform that is going to be oriented to solve Internet Governance Issues..." > - Richard Samans, Managing Director, WEF: "Internet Governance issues are at the top in our industry community conversations, and this is no surprise as it has become one of the hottest political issues of our times... well beyond the technical issues our partner, ICANN, has been dealing for many many years." > - Fadi Chehadé: "For the first time in Sao Paulo, the Internet community agreed on a set of common principles and a roadmap in order to energize our work together, addressing the technical, and more important now, non technical issues". > > So the WEF/ICANN/CGIbr initiative seems to be a place where every one can have his own impression of achieving his own dream. Cool. More seriously, the 750 or so corporations members of the WEF are not jumping in the Sao Paulo legacy for nothing - their membership fees are expensive enough to get a return on investment. It would be naive to think they come to the beauty of discussing trends and fashion in IG conversation. Of course, a few cynics might enjoy playing poker, even though, and I appreciate Lee's questioning on that, there is little doubt that nobody will ever jump out of that elitist club once onboard. > > Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different participants. So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy (overlooking the Leman Lake and located in the most wealthy suburbs of Geneva), should for once, Civil Society shows some unity, strength and courage assuming its best bets are ethical values, if not pragmatic democratic values - and in that regard, acknowledges the serious concerns seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. > > By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): > - what are the concrete points you do not feel comfortable with regarding the initiative - reference to your own critic and personal deeply conflicted approach of it. It would be fair to remind us on that. > - how will the BB list will proceed to come to a conclusion between pro and cons? > - what is your understanding of what is the WEF/ICANN/CGIbr initiative about to concretely be? A venture to fund specific programs or projects? A coordination office for existing IG related institutions or entities? A driver for what Chehahé sees as a Sao Paulo roadmap? Do you have a link for this roadmap to share with us? > - which other civil society representatives have endorsed the initiative according to your knowledge apart from CGIbr and HRW? Not sure Afilias and CIRA are to be considered as civil society as they are in the registry business. > - how can we make a difference between an exaggerated critic and not an exaggerated critic? In other words, how far can we be critical of that initiative? How can one critic of the initiative not be considered as specious, as so far ISOC and JNC have failed in your eyes to express "fair" critics. > - are you in agreement with the naming of the WEF/ICANN/CIGbr initiative: The NetMundial Initiative, a "continuation of Sao Paulo to implement the roadmap with CGIbr in the leadership position, ICANN being a partner on a lower level, and the WEF a collaborator" according to Wolfgang Keinwächter (ICANN) see email Nov 4 *. > > Answers would certainly be helpful in order to have a fruitful conversation in this thread. > > Thanks > JC > > > * WK Full quote : "My understanding is that the NMI is now a "continuation" of Sao Paulo´s NetMundial (to implement the Roadmap as the main mandate) with cgi.br in the leadership position (easier after Rousseff won the election and Virgilio remains the key leader). ICANN will continue - on a lower level - to be a partner and the WEF will "collaborate" with the NMI (having its own projects independent from NMI). But lets wait for the Webinar. Virgilio will explain the outcome from the various consultations in and aftrer LA." > > Wolfgang > > > > > > > Le 18 nov. 2014 à 04:53, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : > >> By now everyone will have read from previous threads that ISOC and the Just Net Coalition (JNC) have both decided not to participate in the NETmundial Initiative, and you may have also have read some false information that Best Bits and other networks represented on the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) *have* decided to participate. As Ian Peter's clarifying message setting out the truth of the matter should have made clear, that is *not* the case. All that has happened is that the we have obtained as much assurance as we can that *if* we decide to participate, then the Secretariat (ICANN, WEF and CGI.br) will accept our self-nomination process rather than choosing civil society representatives independently. >> >> Now we turn to you, our communities, to provide us with guidance about whether to proceed further or not. Some views have already been expressed pro and con. I have been (and remain) publicly critical about the NETmundial Initiative, but on the other hand the reasoning ISOC and JNC give for boycotting it is rather specious, because they characterise the initiative as being something that it doesn't purport to be - ie. a single central policy-making body for Internet governance. This is an alarmist critique that turns the NETmundial Initiative into an exaggerated ITU-style bogeyman. >> >> So whilst there is certainly room for disagreement about whether we should bestow the benefit of our participation on the Initiative (I remain deeply conflicted about this), let's decide on the basis of factual pro and con arguments rather than oversimplifications about the 1% taking over the Internet. Also note that a few civil society representatives, including Human Rights Watch, have endorsed it already and are featured on the carousel message on the front page of netmundial.org. >> >> So what do people think? If you haven't already shared your views, please do so on this thread, within the next few days if possible. >> >> -- >> 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 :: >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > > COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC > ICANN/AFRALO Member > ISOC Member > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 > email : b.schombe at gmail.com > skype : b.schombe > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com Tue Nov 18 11:30:26 2014 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:30:26 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164289A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <546A6801.70707@itforchange.net> <143101d002c4$369f27b0$a3dd7710$@gmail.com> <915854CC-711C-48FA-92AC-B9014B62EE37@eff.org> <20141118140406.036b546d@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164289A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <593FEFE2-CBF2-40CB-B932-015E689BE87C@gmail.com> Wolfgang, Thanks for sharing your impression of what is to be the ICANN/WEF/CGIbr initiative. It brings even more questions about what is it really that is in the making. Probably because you are working currently at ICANN, that might explain why your insider vision is relatively different from what others are able to tell us. (BY the way, have you had time to think about you being seated at the NMI, but then under which hat: one more seat for ICANN, or one more seat for ICANN? We all have in mind the idea that ICANN does not feel fully legitimate to address "INTERNET PUBLIC POLICY" issues, and therefore called for reinforcement of some sort. But could you explain how the WEF and its cohort of corps are even more legitimate to handle these kind of issues? I am wondering also what is the connection between privacy and Human Rights and the WEF, the ICANN and the CGIbr. What's the idea there? Has Pr. Klaus Schwab a new idea for himself to end his lasting career to go into human rights from economy? Tell us about that. The general manager of the WEF tells on the NMI website, that this is all about politics, and money. Somehow what Louis Pouzin said earlier today when mapping the IG. Also, if according to your CEO at ICANN, Netmundial has been a moment for the "Internet community" -not sure what it is exactly - to agree upon a set of common principles, where does the Sao Paulo roadmap (unseen at this stage by many of us) tell us that the WEF is a critical asset to define new internet governance mechanisms or process or whatever is on their mind? If the WEF wishes to edit a report about new ideas regarding the Internet and its governance, we welcome all contributions, but for what superior reasons do we need to have this new "thing" when the most critical thing Civil Society should preferably care about how to create a robust and sustainable funding for the IGF. Maybe the WEF and ICANN wish to provide some financing to IGF, and re-energize it, and call for greater efficiency, transparency and accountability of the IGF. I think JNC has given a very clear and strong explanation about why CS should refrain from participating in such platform. As did ISOC. Not exactly small players in IG. Thanks JC Le 18 nov. 2014 à 15:08, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit : > I see NMI as an initiative which moves forward with innovative policy ideas into still unknown territory. One recommendation of NetMundial in Sau Paulo was to encourage the formation of national multistakeholder Internet Governance platforms which will help to deals with the local Internet Governance issues, taking into account the global and regional discussions. Zhis wold be a concret step where CS can ans has to become a driving force. NMI is a good opportunity a. to help the launch of such national platforms and b. to link them together in a decentralized and diversified "Internet Governance Web" which is based on the local realities, needs and challenges. > > Wolfgang > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Baudouin Schombe > Gesendet: Di 18.11.2014 14:51 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow > Cc: <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, > Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative > > Hello all, > > My question becomes increasingly growing: > 1. What happens to the NetMundial? > 2. NetMundial initiative is different from NetMundial launched in Brazil? > 3. All these groupings of civil society are more partisan and exclusive > selections. It looks like copineries and friendships circles. > I think we should take into account national and regional realities. Whether > we talk about IGF or NetMundial we need from considerations of each > country because > everything is based on some national issues is our continental location. > All these debates within civil society suggests a crisis of leadership with > all its consequences. > What we want exactly? > With representation from civil society in UNCTAD, there has been exclusion; > for MAG, so many asctuces and in the current situation for NetMundial again > and again discriminatory policies. > Ultimately, whatever the plurality of civil society, should understand that > many plurality of concepts also need? > > Baudouin > > > 2014-11-18 14:04 GMT+01:00 Norbert Bollow : > >> Jeremy Malcolm (the representative of Best Bits in CSCG) wrote: >> >>> Via Norbert I have requested that JNC issue a public apology for >>> wrongly stating in this article, along with much other dumping on >>> civil society colleagues, that Best Bits is supporting the NETmundial >>> Initiative. >> >> Before I reply to the substance of this accusation of lying, let me >> quickly comment on why these facts (about which JNC is being accused of >> having told a lie) have some importance: In view of the phenomenon >> which were calling "the caravan for a neo-liberal capture of global >> governance", it would in our view be a huge step forward if the support >> for that could be reduced to those who are willing to publicly admit >> and defend their support for it. From this perspective, it is a very >> serious and significant systemic problem in civil society when actions >> are taken which are in their effect supportive of this "caravan", but >> where those who take or explicitly support such action get away with >> simply disclaiming responsibility, or even claiming that it didn't >> happen. (By contrast it is a legitimate course of action for any of the >> concerned parties to admit to having made a mistake, and to consequently >> change their stance.) >> >> Now to the substance of what we're accused of having been untruthful >> about... >> >> The footnote which is referenced in this demand for an apology (and >> which is the only place where any mention of Best Bits is made) reads in >> full as follows: >> >> For example, on the basis of positive views expressed by APC, >> BestBits, Diplo and NCSG, the chair of the Civil Society Coordination >> Group (CSCG) has sent a very positive letter to NMI offering to >> organize a selection process for civil society representatives for >> NMI's coordination committee. Until now, only the Just Net Coalition >> (JNC) has opposed this plan, and JNC will refuse to participate if it >> goes forward. The other member organizations of CSCG are: Association >> for Progressive Communications (APC), Best Bits, Civicus, Diplo >> Foundation, Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), Non-Commercial >> Stakeholders Group (NCSG). >> >> For context, this footnote is given in support of the assertion that >> some "sections of civil society currently active in the area of Internet >> ... have accepted the invitation from global corporate and other >> elites to participate in the NetMundial Initiative". >> >> I maintain that the concerned letter >> >> * is indeed very positive, and that >> >> * it offers to organize a selection process for civil society >> representatives for NMI's coordination committee, and that >> >> * it in fact represents acceptance in principle of the fundamental >> concept of NMI and the invitation to participate. >> >> This is certainly how we in JNC read the letter, and it appears that >> also ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé (one of the recipients) is understanding >> the letter similarly, as Avri tweeted yesterday: "Fadi, praised the >> letter from civil society asking to select is own members of the #NMI >> council and legitimizing the initiative. #igeneva" >> >> But it is probably necessary at this point for everyone here to be >> given the opportunity to be able to make up their minds for themselves >> on whether, as JNC claims, this letter expresses acceptance in >> principle of NMI. >> >> After all, JNC has in effect been accused of lying. The only way to >> effectively counteract such an accusation is to present evidence that >> what we're saying is in fact the truth about these events. >> >> JNC will of course be very happy if (as we're in fact suggesting in the >> statement) now enough CSCG members change their position so that on the >> basis of that the CSCG position changes, and a corresponding letter is >> sent which contradicts the initial quite positive stance. We would >> certainly acknowledge such a welcome development in an updated version >> of the statement. >> >> So here is the text of the concerned letter from CSCG's chair to NMI: >> >> """ >> Dear Virgilio, Fadi and Richard, >> >> RE: NETMUNDIAL INITIATIVE COORDINATION COUNCIL >> >> I am writing to you on behalf of the Internet Governance Civil >> Society Coordination Group (CSCG), in response to your call for >> nominations for a Coordination Council for the new NetMundial >> Initiative. >> >> I think you all know something of our organisation. We are a >> "coalition of coalitions" of the major civil society groups working >> on internet governance issues, formed specifically to ensure a >> co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to >> making civil society appointments to outside bodies. >> >> Our reach through the represented member coalitions (Internet >> Governance Caucus, Association for Progressive Communications, >> Diplo Foundation, Just Net Coalition, Best Bits, Civicus, and Non >> Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN) extends to some thousands >> of organisations. We provided the nominations for civil society >> members appointed to various committees for the original NetMundial >> initiative in Brazil and the 1net initiative, as well as >> nominations for the recent IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group >> renewal. >> >> A number of us listened in and participated on your webinar last >> week. We are very pleased to see an effort underway to >> collaboratively deal with some of the evolving issues in the >> internet governance arena; and also pleased to see your strong >> commitment to the NetMundial principles, and to a bottom up process >> in bringing this into action. >> >> We have noted carefully the procedures outlined on your website for >> nominations, and the commitment to one civil society representative >> for each of the five regions outlined. You are aware of our >> concerns, which I am sure you share, that the selection processes >> be credible, involve stakeholder groups, and, as your nomination >> process states, "formed through a bottom-up process, inspired by >> the open and transparent approach employed by the organizers of the >> São Paulo NETmundial meeting". >> >> We believe this can best be achieved if we work closely with you to >> ensure that the civil society representation, and involvement in >> selection of its representatives, is as strong, credible and >> effective as possible, and make the following suggestions with this >> end in mind. >> >> SUGGESTION ONE >> >> Although we could go through a separate nomination process and >> forward a number of names to you, it seems to us that in the >> current situation a more workable process would be to encourage >> suitable civil society people to nominate as per your process, but >> then work with you at the close of nominations to provide our >> recommendations on the most suitable candidates. Depending on >> circumstances, we could give you one recommended name per region, >> or we could give a maximum of say three suitable names per region, >> to enable you to consider intra-regional balance across stakeholder >> groups. >> >> We would like your feedback on this option. If we were to follow >> this process, we would need to receive from you full details of >> each nomination received for civil society. We could undertake to >> give completed recommendations within a week of the closing date; >> ie by December 13. We employ well developed processes for achieving >> such an outcome in a credible manner and can assure you than >> necessary confidentiality in dealing with these documents would be >> maintained. >> >> SUGGESTION TWO >> >> Additionally, we could have a representative work with you (the >> transitional committee members) on finalising selections, and >> writing up the rationale for decisions. We appreciate that if one >> of us takes up such a role, the deliberations would be subject to >> complete confidentiality, and this would be a facilitating role to >> ensure the best possible selections. We would welcome your feedback >> on this additional option as well. >> >> TIME CONSTRAINTS >> >> If we are to proceed with one or both of these options, we would >> need to have your confirmation as to our participation in this >> manner fairly quickly, so that we can inform our colleagues. Please >> if possible get back to us this week, or advise when you will be >> able to respond. >> >> We look forward to working with you and to a highly successful >> collaborative initiative to address some important issues of mutual >> concern. We would like to see a strong, widely endorsed, and >> effective civil society presence in developing this initiative, and >> look forward to working with you to achieve this. >> >> Thank you in advance for your cooperation. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Ian Peter >> Independent Chair >> """ >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* > > > *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC* > > *ICANN/AFRALO Member* > *ISOC Member* > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 > email : b.schombe at gmail.com > skype : b.schombe > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 lorena at collaboratory.de Tue Nov 18 11:38:12 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:38:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: <546B6FD2.3030702@apcwomen.org> References: <1416252888.70971.YahooMailIosMobile@web28704.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <546B6FD2.3030702@apcwomen.org> Message-ID: Dear all, as far as I can recall, it was never the talk of creating new stakeholders, but adding new criteria. It was about acknowledging that some positions can only be represented by people with certain experiences/profiles. The internet user is not only white and male and 30 years old enjoying all of his five senses and health. If we want an open, accessible internet for all, we need to include people in the process with diverse experiences -and not only as participants- but also in more symbolic positions and make sure that those positions structurally represent the variety of users and of a stakeholder. The mentioned criteria (gender, geography, age, dissabilities, etc) are part of what constructs an "identity" but do not construct "identity" per se. So it is not about creating an specific chair for hundreds of identities. It is about identifying fair criteria that depict the constant diversity of societies at a regional, national and international level. Kind regards, Lorena 2014-11-18 17:12 GMT+01:00 Jac sm Kee : > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hello everyone, > > Coming in a little late into the discussion. But this reminds me of > the brilliant discussion that we had at the 2013 IGF, where Jeannette > spoke of "unblackboxing" multistakeholderism at the GISWatch women's > rights edition launch. Recognising that within each stakeholder groups > that there are also differences in terms of experiences, needs, > priorities and concerns because of inequality and/or discrimination on > the basis of social identities or standing. So things like locale, > gender, sexualities, disabilities, age, economic power etc, would play > a part. The question is how to hold this effectively within a > structure of representation that is necessarily limited without > fragmenting into endless splits. So not on the basis of 'identity' per > se (which can end up fixing you, and also identity is multiple and > fluid most times - like youth), but maybe on the basis of work or > issues that can be forwarded. And I also agree with Arsene's excellent > point that this should be something that is also considered not just > by CS, but govt, private sector, technical community etc. > > Saying that, I am very happy to support an explicit inclusion of > disability as a criteria for consideration! > > Best, > jac > > > On 18/11/2014 03:34, Arsene TUNGALI wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > > Thanks Everyone for your thoughtful reactions regarding this > > sensitive subject, people with disabilities. > > > > I strongly agree with the idea for inclusion of this particular > > stakeholder in the MAG but we may need to find a better approach > > while advocating for this. > > > > My point was that, i don't think we need to 'create' another stake > > that we may call, i don't know, People with Disabilities or > > Disabled People and have it stand alongside those major stakeholder > > groups such as Gov, Civil Society, Business, Academic, etc. > > > > I believe these are already inclusive at a certain rate. the point > > here for me would be to make them more inclusive by making sure for > > extance, people with disabilities are being chosen to be part of > > one of them. That's what i see we may need to advocate for: > > appointing qualitative candidancies with more attention from the > > Gov sector or any other sector. > > > > I always apreciate how my friend and mentor Tracy Hackshaw (sorry > > for copying you in here again if you are already on these lists) > > is advocating for Small Islands trying by any means to make sure > > these countries are represented. I don't think he is advocating for > > a particular 'stake' for this group but for them to be represented > > (please correct me if i am wrong). > > > > Also, kudos to Mrs Judy for her work! I have been following and > > admire her passion and work in the IGF and even in the Diplo > > community. > > > > In my country, there is a bill that sets a certain percentage of > > people with disabilities to be included in the government and other > > state institutions. Though this has never been implemented properly > > but this can be a good start moving forward. > > > > Sorry for being long but to be brief, my point is that let's make > > a proposal to the MAG that they may need to make sure people with > > disabilities are represented (to consider QUALITATIVE candidancies > > for the MAG with more attention). > > > > Would love to hear your thoughts on this Remmy. > > > > Regards, A ------------------ Arsene Tungali, Executive Director, > > Rudi International www.rudiinternational.org > > > > > > Founder, Mabingwa Forum www.mabingwa-forum.com > > Phone:+243993810967 > > > > > > ICANN Fellow | ISOC Member | Child Online Protection Advocate | > > Youth Leader | Internet Governance. Democratic Republic of Congo > > (DRC) > > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > > At 17 nov. 2014 20:32:40, Remmy Nweke<'remmyn at gmail.com > > '> wrote: Thanks Deirdre for the > > explanation, > > > > However, no matter what other opinion, we must be conscious of the > > moment and relate it to the reality of things. > > > > I am convinced that Arsene "alert" is not unfounded but a note for > > careful decision making, so no threat meant as far as I can > > deduce. > > > > Therefore, I would like to submit that there is nothing, > > absolutely nothing wrong in us advocating inclusion of disability > > colleagues in the MAG in real sense of it, after all we say its a > > multi-stakeholder, yet the question here remain whether we have > > made the multi-stakeholderism a reality or are we still guessing > > with semantics? > > > > Posterity will be on our side for seeing enough reasons to > > accommodate this request, after all, for instance, those of us who > > have worked closely with Judy Okite, know her capability when it > > comes to work despite all odds. I am sure those Ginger Prague > > mentioned earlier have been as hardworking as Judy among our pears > > for them to merit such mentions and recognition. > > > > So, our decision must reflect the reality of things with purpose > > driven. If there are other request for inclusion as feared by > > Arsene, then when we get to the bridge, let us cross it, but for > > now. This is proposal is imperative. > > > > Goodevening from Lagos Remmy > > > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Deirdre Williams > > > wrote: > > > > Bad choice of words perhaps :-( The concerns I have heard seem to > > focus on the possibility that if one group is given special status > > as regards representation then several other groups may ask for the > > same facility. If you look back in this thread Arsene on 14th was > > the first person to express this concern. I think I used > > "dangerous" (and please note the "...") because the stability of > > the MAG is very important. Therefore it is essential that the > > justification for the request should be quite clear and offer no > > threat to that stability. > > > > On 17 November 2014 13:32, Remmy Nweke > > wrote: > > > > Dear Deirdre, So far your submissions have been engaging and > > interesting, but I did not understand the aspect of "dangerous" > > precedent. > > > > Is it that our support for recognition of persons with disabilities > > in the MAG is a dangerous step or that it would amount to that in > > the future? If yes, why? > > > > We must have at the back of our mind that issues must be treated on > > merit, of course, I think this subject herein is merited. > > > > However, I would appreciate more light/explanation before I can ask > > further questions. Thanks Remmy > > > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Deirdre Williams > > > wrote: > > > > My thought is "go for it". However I think it will be necessary to > > establish that "people with disabilities" are a stakeholder group, > > rather than an issue. Ginger and I spent an hour discussing that > > last night without reaching any resolution. This conversation began > > because of Lorena's suggestion to institutionalise the inclusion of > > someone representative of "the youth" as happened fortuitously this > > year with the selection of Bianca for the MAG. There are other > > interests which might also feel the desirability of being given an > > "own representative". Can we present a strong enough argument to > > persuade the MAG in its wisdom to support the creation of a > > somewhat "dangerous" precedent? > > > > On 17 November 2014 11:07, Judy Okite > > wrote: > > > > Thank you All, > > > > for your contributions and support, I highly appreciate it! > > > > Indeed to have the persons with disabilities voices and concerns > > raised in these forums is important, but the utmost importance is > > to have them involved, be part of the process, be part of the > > team. > > > > Could we have this in signatures and forward it to the secretariat > > to have this discussed as part of AOB in the December meeting? > > > > De, whats your thought? > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > /'Chance Favors the prepared mind'///-Louis Pasteur > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Remmy Nweke > > wrote: > > > > Let me add my voice to Deidre's narration. Yes we often forget > > those with disabilities and I think now we are reminded of it, > > thus imperative we all support the call for inclusion. May be pass > > that as a resolution to make or have a rep from them at part of MAG > > process. Thus should also apply to member nations too that way we > > will no longer forget. Nice day all. Remmy Nweke @ITRealms A member > > of DigitalSENSE > > > > Sent from my Windows Phone > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > From: Deirdre Williams > > Sent: 14/11/2014 15:01 To: Internet Governance > > Subject: [governance] People with disabilities > > > > Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category, (made on the > > Bestbits list this morning) the need to have a constant voice for > > people with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last > > few years, but she has finished her term of appointment. She made > > this suggestion herself at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since > > one billion people around the world suffer from some disability, > > and the Internet can offer considerable relief for them, they are > > the holders of a very significant "stake". Sadly it is easy to > > forget if one does not suffer from a disability oneself, which is > > why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for these > > stakeholders in all such groups. Deirdre > > > > -- “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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" > > Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- ____ REMMY NWEKE, Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, > > DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd (publishers of) DigitalSENSE Business > > News; ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet (Multiple-award winning medium) > > Published by: DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd Block F1, Shop 133 > > Moyosore Aboderin Plaza Bolade > > Junction , Oshodi-Lagos M: > > 234-8033592762 , 8023122558 , > > 8051000475 , T: @ITRealms > > [Member, NIRA Executive Board] > > Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria > > NDS Forum > > on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2015 > > - June 5 > > Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2015 > > - June 6 > > @Welcome Centre Hotels. Register now. > > Email: remnekkv at gmail.com > > _____________________________________________________________________ > > > > > *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document > > and attachments are confidential and may also be privileged > > information. It is intended only for the use of the named > > recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the > > contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, > > please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not > > disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor > > make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" > > Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- ____ REMMY NWEKE, Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, > > DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd (publishers of) DigitalSENSE Business > > News; ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet (Multiple-award winning medium) > > Published by: DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd Block F1, Shop 133 > > Moyosore Aboderin Plaza Bolade > > Junction , Oshodi-Lagos M: > > 234-8033592762 , 8023122558 , > > 8051000475 , T: @ITRealms > > [Member, NIRA Executive Board] > > Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria > > NDS Forum > > on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2015 > > - June 5 > > Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2015 > > - June 6 > > @Welcome Centre Hotels. Register now. > > Email: remnekkv at gmail.com > > _____________________________________________________________________ > > > > > *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and > > attachments are confidential and may also be privileged > > information. It is intended only for the use of the named > > recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the > > contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, > > please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not > > disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor > > make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. > > > > - -- > > - --------------------------------- > Jac sm Kee > Manager, Women's Rights Programme > Association for Progressive Communications > www.apc.org | www.takebackthetech.net | erotics.apc.org > Jitsi: jacsmk | Skype: jacsmk | Twitter: @jhybe > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUa2/SAAoJEKpQzmPAS5Fm87QH+wber66ABSmFBtG2FVmyo7dv > zuUz7rNb+iFDR5Oo/WJbR4s1AGoiGrMaW5NkOPcqRWt/tZnhB5WdbRavC4+3jEtl > jW3Qqga8iYsRRwBKBxZfQKameiiBeJz5sJyqAlFWlhvqglP3txdrdd5n0KZSefem > X52A98uhfj0GgTqzLnoWYX/sOTAkNqmvV8chp5vrqARsVrK/QBRmGXS/ACeXjhNf > ApaKhECDxPFZ0P53Ijxa6RRG0CyEDlmTmZnReDOha0hiTVmVZArRHcsZQCW7xlrv > ZFzDjtSQOdMnJRRW5GpDbRcB7VmRS2LXi6y6DqdpssFEegUAXLC5jpuUIri0lRU= > =LDtc > -----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 > > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí ∙ Coordinator, Global Internet Governance Arbeitsgruppe Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.intgovforum.de ∙ www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 18 11:49:26 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:49:26 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative References: <546A6801.70707@itforchange.net> <143101d002c4$369f27b0$a3dd7710$@gmail.com> <915854CC-711C-48FA-92AC-B9014B62EE37@eff.org> <20141118140406.036b546d@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164289A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <179f01d00343$d7a21440$86e63cc0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164289C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Michael in a decentralized network, the intelligence (and the power) is at the edges, not in the centre. A root server has no real power. It takes a query and sends it to the next server towards the final destination to enable communication between a sender and a receiver. Sender and receiver remain independent, but they benefit from their communication. To enable communication among independent national multistakeholder platforms would be produce benefit for both sides without creating a "power centre" in the middle of a network. Thatswhy the principle of network neutrality is so important. Take a ccTLD registry. The make their own Independent policy,b but they benefit from "best practices" via the CNSO. Wolfgang ergive (independent) -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Gesendet: Di 18.11.2014 16:25 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; 'Baudouin Schombe'; 'Norbert Bollow' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Betreff: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative All presumably under the gentlest but strongest and tightest control from the master spiders sitting at the centre of the web in Washington and Geneva. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 6:09 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Baudouin Schombe; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative I see NMI as an initiative which moves forward with innovative policy ideas into still unknown territory. One recommendation of NetMundial in Sau Paulo was to encourage the formation of national multistakeholder Internet Governance platforms which will help to deals with the local Internet Governance issues, taking into account the global and regional discussions. Zhis wold be a concret step where CS can ans has to become a driving force. NMI is a good opportunity a. to help the launch of such national platforms and b. to link them together in a decentralized and diversified "Internet Governance Web" which is based on the local realities, needs and challenges. Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Baudouin Schombe Gesendet: Di 18.11.2014 14:51 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow Cc: <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative Hello all, My question becomes increasingly growing: 1. What happens to the NetMundial? 2. NetMundial initiative is different from NetMundial launched in Brazil? 3. All these groupings of civil society are more partisan and exclusive selections. It looks like copineries and friendships circles. I think we should take into account national and regional realities. Whether we talk about IGF or NetMundial we need from considerations of each country because everything is based on some national issues is our continental location. All these debates within civil society suggests a crisis of leadership with all its consequences. What we want exactly? With representation from civil society in UNCTAD, there has been exclusion; for MAG, so many asctuces and in the current situation for NetMundial again and again discriminatory policies. Ultimately, whatever the plurality of civil society, should understand that many plurality of concepts also need? Baudouin 2014-11-18 14:04 GMT+01:00 Norbert Bollow : > Jeremy Malcolm (the representative of Best Bits in CSCG) wrote: > > > Via Norbert I have requested that JNC issue a public apology for > > wrongly stating in this article, along with much other dumping on > > civil society colleagues, that Best Bits is supporting the > > NETmundial Initiative. > > Before I reply to the substance of this accusation of lying, let me > quickly comment on why these facts (about which JNC is being accused > of having told a lie) have some importance: In view of the phenomenon > which were calling "the caravan for a neo-liberal capture of global > governance", it would in our view be a huge step forward if the > support for that could be reduced to those who are willing to publicly > admit and defend their support for it. From this perspective, it is a > very serious and significant systemic problem in civil society when > actions are taken which are in their effect supportive of this > "caravan", but where those who take or explicitly support such action > get away with simply disclaiming responsibility, or even claiming that > it didn't happen. (By contrast it is a legitimate course of action for > any of the concerned parties to admit to having made a mistake, and to > consequently change their stance.) > > Now to the substance of what we're accused of having been untruthful > about... > > The footnote which is referenced in this demand for an apology (and > which is the only place where any mention of Best Bits is made) reads > in full as follows: > > For example, on the basis of positive views expressed by APC, > BestBits, Diplo and NCSG, the chair of the Civil Society Coordination > Group (CSCG) has sent a very positive letter to NMI offering to > organize a selection process for civil society representatives for > NMI's coordination committee. Until now, only the Just Net Coalition > (JNC) has opposed this plan, and JNC will refuse to participate if it > goes forward. The other member organizations of CSCG are: Association > for Progressive Communications (APC), Best Bits, Civicus, Diplo > Foundation, Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), Non-Commercial > Stakeholders Group (NCSG). > > For context, this footnote is given in support of the assertion that > some "sections of civil society currently active in the area of > Internet ... have accepted the invitation from global corporate and > other elites to participate in the NetMundial Initiative". > > I maintain that the concerned letter > > * is indeed very positive, and that > > * it offers to organize a selection process for civil society > representatives for NMI's coordination committee, and that > > * it in fact represents acceptance in principle of the fundamental > concept of NMI and the invitation to participate. > > This is certainly how we in JNC read the letter, and it appears that > also ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé (one of the recipients) is understanding > the letter similarly, as Avri tweeted yesterday: "Fadi, praised the > letter from civil society asking to select is own members of the #NMI > council and legitimizing the initiative. #igeneva" > > But it is probably necessary at this point for everyone here to be > given the opportunity to be able to make up their minds for themselves > on whether, as JNC claims, this letter expresses acceptance in > principle of NMI. > > After all, JNC has in effect been accused of lying. The only way to > effectively counteract such an accusation is to present evidence that > what we're saying is in fact the truth about these events. > > JNC will of course be very happy if (as we're in fact suggesting in > the > statement) now enough CSCG members change their position so that on > the basis of that the CSCG position changes, and a corresponding > letter is sent which contradicts the initial quite positive stance. We > would certainly acknowledge such a welcome development in an updated > version of the statement. > > So here is the text of the concerned letter from CSCG's chair to NMI: > > """ > Dear Virgilio, Fadi and Richard, > > RE: NETMUNDIAL INITIATIVE COORDINATION COUNCIL > > I am writing to you on behalf of the Internet Governance Civil > Society Coordination Group (CSCG), in response to your call for > nominations for a Coordination Council for the new NetMundial > Initiative. > > I think you all know something of our organisation. We are a > "coalition of coalitions" of the major civil society groups working > on internet governance issues, formed specifically to ensure a > co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to > making civil society appointments to outside bodies. > > Our reach through the represented member coalitions (Internet > Governance Caucus, Association for Progressive Communications, > Diplo Foundation, Just Net Coalition, Best Bits, Civicus, and Non > Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN) extends to some thousands > of organisations. We provided the nominations for civil society > members appointed to various committees for the original NetMundial > initiative in Brazil and the 1net initiative, as well as > nominations for the recent IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group > renewal. > > A number of us listened in and participated on your webinar last > week. We are very pleased to see an effort underway to > collaboratively deal with some of the evolving issues in the > internet governance arena; and also pleased to see your strong > commitment to the NetMundial principles, and to a bottom up process > in bringing this into action. > > We have noted carefully the procedures outlined on your website for > nominations, and the commitment to one civil society representative > for each of the five regions outlined. You are aware of our > concerns, which I am sure you share, that the selection processes > be credible, involve stakeholder groups, and, as your nomination > process states, "formed through a bottom-up process, inspired by > the open and transparent approach employed by the organizers of the > São Paulo NETmundial meeting". > > We believe this can best be achieved if we work closely with you to > ensure that the civil society representation, and involvement in > selection of its representatives, is as strong, credible and > effective as possible, and make the following suggestions with this > end in mind. > > SUGGESTION ONE > > Although we could go through a separate nomination process and > forward a number of names to you, it seems to us that in the > current situation a more workable process would be to encourage > suitable civil society people to nominate as per your process, but > then work with you at the close of nominations to provide our > recommendations on the most suitable candidates. Depending on > circumstances, we could give you one recommended name per region, > or we could give a maximum of say three suitable names per region, > to enable you to consider intra-regional balance across stakeholder > groups. > > We would like your feedback on this option. If we were to follow > this process, we would need to receive from you full details of > each nomination received for civil society. We could undertake to > give completed recommendations within a week of the closing date; > ie by December 13. We employ well developed processes for achieving > such an outcome in a credible manner and can assure you than > necessary confidentiality in dealing with these documents would be > maintained. > > SUGGESTION TWO > > Additionally, we could have a representative work with you (the > transitional committee members) on finalising selections, and > writing up the rationale for decisions. We appreciate that if one > of us takes up such a role, the deliberations would be subject to > complete confidentiality, and this would be a facilitating role to > ensure the best possible selections. We would welcome your feedback > on this additional option as well. > > TIME CONSTRAINTS > > If we are to proceed with one or both of these options, we would > need to have your confirmation as to our participation in this > manner fairly quickly, so that we can inform our colleagues. Please > if possible get back to us this week, or advise when you will be > able to respond. > > We look forward to working with you and to a highly successful > collaborative initiative to address some important issues of mutual > concern. We would like to see a strong, widely endorsed, and > effective civil society presence in developing this initiative, and > look forward to working with you to achieve this. > > Thank you in advance for your cooperation. > > Sincerely, > > Ian Peter > Independent Chair > """ > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC* *ICANN/AFRALO Member* *ISOC Member* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.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 jmalcolm at eff.org Tue Nov 18 11:55:01 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:55:01 -0600 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > > I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on civil society colleagues" you are referring to, Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post about this at igfwatch.org , because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic for this list. > The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen to non JNC members: > - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB Initiative) Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. > - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some quarters to create a "UN Security Council” A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? > - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi Chehadé: ... None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global [Internet] governance”. > Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different participants. I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial meeting. On this much we agree. > So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I certainly have (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their endorsement of the Initiative. Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off list, two emails in support, as well as one against). > By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a flight a few hours later. But I write this brief response just because you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not. Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions rather than me monopolising the conversation. -- 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 18 12:05:05 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 22:35:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Second African School on IG In-Reply-To: <546B5530.4060405@apc.org> References: <546B002A.7050209@apc.org> <5A88E61B-D26C-4AEC-AE9F-4B990626C747@difference.com.au> <546B5530.4060405@apc.org> Message-ID: <149c3dd4e48.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> I have seen my fair share of such gripes and can point to cases where capacity building would have worked far better than simply writing a check for grant money. This is not to belittle the fact that funding is also necessary but neither is an exact substitute for the other On November 18, 2014 9:44:26 PM Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Thanks David.. and you will be missed. It was good to have so many > people from NCUC there last year. I will also really miss having Carlos > Afonso.. the participants really enjoyed learning from the Brazilian > experience. > > On the other hand I am really pleased that we have such a strong > contingent of African faculty and resource people joining us this year. > > We often talk about building capacity in IG, and I generally get > irritated when it is used in ways that I find politically patronising > (when used as a way of dealing with developing country gripes). > > We don't spend nearly enough time, either as civil society, or as > Africans - in this instance - acknowledging how much capacity we already > have. > > Anriette > > > > On 18/11/2014 16:02, David Cake wrote: > > I hope it goes well, I very much enjoyed being a very small part of it in > 2013. > > > > David > > > > On 18 Nov 2014, at 4:15 pm, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > > > >> Dear all > >> > >> Some of you will be there in person, but for those of you will not be > there, you can find out more about the Second African School on IG which > will start in Mauritius later this week. > >> > >> Best > >> > >> Anriette > >> > >> http://african-ig-school.events.apc.org/ > >> > >> -- > >> ````````````````````````````````` > >> anriette esterhuysen > >> executive director > >> association for progressive communications > >> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa > >> anriette at apc.org > >> www.apc.org > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > - -- > ````````````````````````````````` > anriette esterhuysen > executive director > association for progressive communications > po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa > anriette at apc.org > www.apc.org > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1 > > iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUa1UwAAoJEH1pB9ymsbAuFFYP/2i2nLaURVRXWGKgqhrINPED > ifXVROcaxI9g48jhiCJRFTg9QsbtoK2vm4Ar3p5I0N59t1ZOu1DiTGYaRhf0XCnN > 0Rh5POAuBqlFK0SB2zankTn4RItQ0+VFAx9Xoe8CTnShrcMNAiJuctYqLh/NFSXG > UgjpggveNLP7CcZRJpJHHO/Oy22BZTl/TSBXmCgN2slrUFpeQFOrYtCZDPY+G5lG > 85rexPW/0powDM4pFago+5FrkmkQfD86thoWoteD8pIUsjyHjzsIC+SfkvO9RvWk > xCNjrnl5mVVqM3Ey0mRXqztk+4w73X8MjmYM3T9VCkDbinXqCW08nSlOSpZ83rPJ > SWMPyaMER0UWqGT8mtrW2QfUimYFLeVsAfTIwYM1zDgG3NWy5P0XKv15Q1Ta1w1k > 4gqWjCKM5WSLMx0u7xnwgYDtY3kWLW6/ilPNAlgyu20VWEQOcC3V8dGFiQk37+8t > 26eklK43zZWrRRX+qH9m5fzbE5WHUTE0TlxJGeM8hrt0B/k6rC3bqSvyMlrNQD2b > UnnDmrA1fvS+jJdZRLm/YlvCxtSFhn6mbFyP34Fwz1ArMYbxjarFMXLUu6S9OJsy > Gp9gAcuCZpAu98PWj8N5ZMikVJFWpURq90TRt6UUDufuEE/MjGvkjPXrkvr0+3JO > Y+CV2VsL9FHYmQk6QKhX > =Qxxa > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Tue Nov 18 12:37:08 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 18:37:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, Quite obviously if WEF is interested in CS joining in NMI it's because it helps WEF interests, which are well known to side with power and money. The idea of influencing WEF for CS interests sounds like fairy tale. CS would be trapped in accepting to appear supporting WEF interests, and would lose credibility. Therefore I think CS should not participate in the NMI. Louis. - - - On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 3:20 PM, chlebrum . wrote: > "It looks like copineries and friendships circles." > That's all... and it's a pity! > > Chantal Lebrument > Courriel: c hlebrum at gmail.com > Mob: +33 6 8369 5460 > > 2014-11-18 14:55 GMT+01:00 Baudouin Schombe : > >> My question becomes increasingly growing: >> 1. What happens to the NetMundial? >> 2. NetMundial initiative is different from NetMundial launched in Brazil? >> 3. All these groupings of civil society are more partisan and exclusive >> selections. It looks like copineries and friendships circles. >> I think we should take into account national and regional realities. Whether >> we talk or IGF NetMundial we need from considerations of each country because >> everything is based on some national issues is our continental location. >> All these debates within civil society suggests a crisis of leadership with >> all its consequences. >> What we want exactly? >> With representation from civil society in UNCTAD, there has been >> exclusion; for MAG, so many asctuces and in the current situation for >> NetMundial again and again discriminatory policies. >> Ultimately, whatever the plurality of civil society, should understand >> that many plurality of concepts also need? >> >> 2014-11-18 12:32 GMT+01:00 Mawaki Chango : >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't repeat the >>> background details. In the middle of the night last night, before hitting >>> the bed after a long and drawn out day playing catch-up with deadlines, I >>> saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI Transitional Committee's >>> reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, they are willing to let the CSCG vet CS >>> candidates to be part of the NMI Coordination Council. >>> >>> Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership of CSCG >>> member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI process or not. I >>> believe this is the last step in the consultations we've been having (with >>> NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and with the membership of our >>> respective organizations.) After this we should be able to give a definite >>> answer, formulate a definite position about our participation in the NMI >>> process. >>> >>> So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be brief. State >>> your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement and, if you care to >>> provide us with such, I would be grateful to you if you could keep your >>> supporting argument in one short paragraph (as we just want to take the >>> "temperature of the room" if you see what I mean.) >>> >>> Thank you for your understanding. >>> Best regards. >>> >>> Mawaki >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 18 13:01:56 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:01:56 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164289C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <546A6801.70707@itforchange.net> <143101d002c4$369f27b0$a3dd7710$@gmail.com> <915854CC-711C-48FA-92AC-B9014B62EE37@eff.org> <20141118140406.036b546d@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164289A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <179f01d00343$d7a21440$86e63cc0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164289C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <192101d00359$be75d3b0$3b617b10$@gmail.com> Wolfgang We must be talking about different networks. The NMI as I understand it has ultimate centralized decision making (ie: the final say on appointments to the Steering Committee) and centralized control through the Steering Committee over financing/funding. In the NMI the intelligence may (or may not) be at the edges, but the power seems to be firmly entrenched at the centre. M -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 8:49 AM To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Baudouin Schombe; Norbert Bollow Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative Hi Michael in a decentralized network, the intelligence (and the power) is at the edges, not in the centre. A root server has no real power. It takes a query and sends it to the next server towards the final destination to enable communication between a sender and a receiver. Sender and receiver remain independent, but they benefit from their communication. To enable communication among independent national multistakeholder platforms would be produce benefit for both sides without creating a "power centre" in the middle of a network. Thatswhy the principle of network neutrality is so important. Take a ccTLD registry. The make their own Independent policy,b but they benefit from "best practices" via the CNSO. Wolfgang ergive (independent) -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Gesendet: Di 18.11.2014 16:25 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; 'Baudouin Schombe'; 'Norbert Bollow' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Betreff: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative All presumably under the gentlest but strongest and tightest control from the master spiders sitting at the centre of the web in Washington and Geneva. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 6:09 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Baudouin Schombe; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative I see NMI as an initiative which moves forward with innovative policy ideas into still unknown territory. One recommendation of NetMundial in Sau Paulo was to encourage the formation of national multistakeholder Internet Governance platforms which will help to deals with the local Internet Governance issues, taking into account the global and regional discussions. Zhis wold be a concret step where CS can ans has to become a driving force. NMI is a good opportunity a. to help the launch of such national platforms and b. to link them together in a decentralized and diversified "Internet Governance Web" which is based on the local realities, needs and challenges. Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Baudouin Schombe Gesendet: Di 18.11.2014 14:51 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow Cc: <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative Hello all, My question becomes increasingly growing: 1. What happens to the NetMundial? 2. NetMundial initiative is different from NetMundial launched in Brazil? 3. All these groupings of civil society are more partisan and exclusive selections. It looks like copineries and friendships circles. I think we should take into account national and regional realities. Whether we talk about IGF or NetMundial we need from considerations of each country because everything is based on some national issues is our continental location. All these debates within civil society suggests a crisis of leadership with all its consequences. What we want exactly? With representation from civil society in UNCTAD, there has been exclusion; for MAG, so many asctuces and in the current situation for NetMundial again and again discriminatory policies. Ultimately, whatever the plurality of civil society, should understand that many plurality of concepts also need? Baudouin 2014-11-18 14:04 GMT+01:00 Norbert Bollow : > Jeremy Malcolm (the representative of Best Bits in CSCG) wrote: > > > Via Norbert I have requested that JNC issue a public apology for > > wrongly stating in this article, along with much other dumping on > > civil society colleagues, that Best Bits is supporting the > > NETmundial Initiative. > > Before I reply to the substance of this accusation of lying, let me > quickly comment on why these facts (about which JNC is being accused > of having told a lie) have some importance: In view of the phenomenon > which were calling "the caravan for a neo-liberal capture of global > governance", it would in our view be a huge step forward if the > support for that could be reduced to those who are willing to publicly > admit and defend their support for it. From this perspective, it is a > very serious and significant systemic problem in civil society when > actions are taken which are in their effect supportive of this > "caravan", but where those who take or explicitly support such action > get away with simply disclaiming responsibility, or even claiming that > it didn't happen. (By contrast it is a legitimate course of action for > any of the concerned parties to admit to having made a mistake, and to > consequently change their stance.) > > Now to the substance of what we're accused of having been untruthful > about... > > The footnote which is referenced in this demand for an apology (and > which is the only place where any mention of Best Bits is made) reads > in full as follows: > > For example, on the basis of positive views expressed by APC, > BestBits, Diplo and NCSG, the chair of the Civil Society Coordination > Group (CSCG) has sent a very positive letter to NMI offering to > organize a selection process for civil society representatives for > NMI's coordination committee. Until now, only the Just Net Coalition > (JNC) has opposed this plan, and JNC will refuse to participate if it > goes forward. The other member organizations of CSCG are: Association > for Progressive Communications (APC), Best Bits, Civicus, Diplo > Foundation, Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), Non-Commercial > Stakeholders Group (NCSG). > > For context, this footnote is given in support of the assertion that > some "sections of civil society currently active in the area of > Internet ... have accepted the invitation from global corporate and > other elites to participate in the NetMundial Initiative". > > I maintain that the concerned letter > > * is indeed very positive, and that > > * it offers to organize a selection process for civil society > representatives for NMI's coordination committee, and that > > * it in fact represents acceptance in principle of the fundamental > concept of NMI and the invitation to participate. > > This is certainly how we in JNC read the letter, and it appears that > also ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé (one of the recipients) is understanding > the letter similarly, as Avri tweeted yesterday: "Fadi, praised the > letter from civil society asking to select is own members of the #NMI > council and legitimizing the initiative. #igeneva" > > But it is probably necessary at this point for everyone here to be > given the opportunity to be able to make up their minds for themselves > on whether, as JNC claims, this letter expresses acceptance in > principle of NMI. > > After all, JNC has in effect been accused of lying. The only way to > effectively counteract such an accusation is to present evidence that > what we're saying is in fact the truth about these events. > > JNC will of course be very happy if (as we're in fact suggesting in > the > statement) now enough CSCG members change their position so that on > the basis of that the CSCG position changes, and a corresponding > letter is sent which contradicts the initial quite positive stance. We > would certainly acknowledge such a welcome development in an updated > version of the statement. > > So here is the text of the concerned letter from CSCG's chair to NMI: > > """ > Dear Virgilio, Fadi and Richard, > > RE: NETMUNDIAL INITIATIVE COORDINATION COUNCIL > > I am writing to you on behalf of the Internet Governance Civil > Society Coordination Group (CSCG), in response to your call for > nominations for a Coordination Council for the new NetMundial > Initiative. > > I think you all know something of our organisation. We are a > "coalition of coalitions" of the major civil society groups working > on internet governance issues, formed specifically to ensure a > co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to > making civil society appointments to outside bodies. > > Our reach through the represented member coalitions (Internet > Governance Caucus, Association for Progressive Communications, > Diplo Foundation, Just Net Coalition, Best Bits, Civicus, and Non > Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN) extends to some thousands > of organisations. We provided the nominations for civil society > members appointed to various committees for the original NetMundial > initiative in Brazil and the 1net initiative, as well as > nominations for the recent IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group > renewal. > > A number of us listened in and participated on your webinar last > week. We are very pleased to see an effort underway to > collaboratively deal with some of the evolving issues in the > internet governance arena; and also pleased to see your strong > commitment to the NetMundial principles, and to a bottom up process > in bringing this into action. > > We have noted carefully the procedures outlined on your website for > nominations, and the commitment to one civil society representative > for each of the five regions outlined. You are aware of our > concerns, which I am sure you share, that the selection processes > be credible, involve stakeholder groups, and, as your nomination > process states, "formed through a bottom-up process, inspired by > the open and transparent approach employed by the organizers of the > São Paulo NETmundial meeting". > > We believe this can best be achieved if we work closely with you to > ensure that the civil society representation, and involvement in > selection of its representatives, is as strong, credible and > effective as possible, and make the following suggestions with this > end in mind. > > SUGGESTION ONE > > Although we could go through a separate nomination process and > forward a number of names to you, it seems to us that in the > current situation a more workable process would be to encourage > suitable civil society people to nominate as per your process, but > then work with you at the close of nominations to provide our > recommendations on the most suitable candidates. Depending on > circumstances, we could give you one recommended name per region, > or we could give a maximum of say three suitable names per region, > to enable you to consider intra-regional balance across stakeholder > groups. > > We would like your feedback on this option. If we were to follow > this process, we would need to receive from you full details of > each nomination received for civil society. We could undertake to > give completed recommendations within a week of the closing date; > ie by December 13. We employ well developed processes for achieving > such an outcome in a credible manner and can assure you than > necessary confidentiality in dealing with these documents would be > maintained. > > SUGGESTION TWO > > Additionally, we could have a representative work with you (the > transitional committee members) on finalising selections, and > writing up the rationale for decisions. We appreciate that if one > of us takes up such a role, the deliberations would be subject to > complete confidentiality, and this would be a facilitating role to > ensure the best possible selections. We would welcome your feedback > on this additional option as well. > > TIME CONSTRAINTS > > If we are to proceed with one or both of these options, we would > need to have your confirmation as to our participation in this > manner fairly quickly, so that we can inform our colleagues. Please > if possible get back to us this week, or advise when you will be > able to respond. > > We look forward to working with you and to a highly successful > collaborative initiative to address some important issues of mutual > concern. We would like to see a strong, widely endorsed, and > effective civil society presence in developing this initiative, and > look forward to working with you to achieve this. > > Thank you in advance for your cooperation. > > Sincerely, > > Ian Peter > Independent Chair > """ > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC* *ICANN/AFRALO Member* *ISOC Member* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.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 jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Tue Nov 18 13:06:38 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:06:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> Message-ID: <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> Jeremy, Thanks for your email. Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real politics. Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect and impact. What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at stake such as - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US refused to discuss mass surveillance? - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing and growing? - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us. - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for CS. - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important than IANA for example? - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They also create more "values". I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless, CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today. Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the realities that are taking away our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of the WEF. Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and more people. We should not care about that. We should care about having a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the current mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes to convene and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead to some social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence. JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics. There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the debate. That would be fair. JC Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : > On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: >> >> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on civil society colleagues" you are referring to, > > Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post about this at igfwatch.org, because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic for this list. > >> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen to non JNC members: >> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB Initiative) > > Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. > >> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some quarters to create a "UN Security Council” > > A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? > >> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi Chehadé: ... > > None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global [Internet] governance”. > >> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different participants. > > I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial meeting. On this much we agree. > >> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. > > Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I certainly have (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their endorsement of the Initiative. > > Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off list, two emails in support, as well as one against). > >> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): > > I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a flight a few hours later. But I write this brief response just because you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not. Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions rather than me monopolising the conversation. > > -- > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 18 14:42:02 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:42:02 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil Society members here. My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be withdrawn if XYZ is not met. I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I dont think we should miss out. NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate. From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very interested in the NMI. I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to participate but we cannot ask others not to. Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at the same time, saying that it is important for African S to participate. All for now Nnenna On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Jeremy, > > Thanks for your email. > > Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do > not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to > terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real politics. > > Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect and > impact. > > What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or > participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of > definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks > more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a > wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends with > deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics behind > all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my > life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of that > smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie" > when you need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple > line. No, let's stay on what is at stake such as > - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US refused > to discuss mass surveillance? > - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing and > growing? > - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, > insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of > the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao Paulo, > then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass surveillance has > nothing to do with IG they told us. > - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU > decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that > search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links they > assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for CS. > - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important than > IANA for example? > - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it comes > to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying the > political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help ourselves to > have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are > currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their innovative > abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They also create more > "values". > > I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless, CS > should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the weakness > that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame JNC or anyone > else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today. > > Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a > satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist their > arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it not that > bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go directly after > the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when launching an open, honest, > transparent debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their > committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is critical. "Please > energize me! should we all cry. We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. > > So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate and > launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and corporations > to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we live in since the > mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow citizens, we are > failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do not need any WEF. You > only need to trust, share, and confront the realities that are taking away > our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of wasting our time > and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of the WEF. > > Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. JNC > is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and more > people. We should not care about that. We should care about having a > collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the current > mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes > to convene and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has often > been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When > it comes to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply > doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, they > would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other > few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It could work, > but then it would lead to some social disaster, a disruption that would > unleash violence. > > JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias is > somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no barons. > We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to avoid > another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales as long as > we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics. > > There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil society > participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that we should > pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have hidden agenda, > and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the debate. That would be > fair. > > JC > > > > Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : > > On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal < > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote: > > > I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a > personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on > civil society colleagues" you are referring to, > > > Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post about > this at igfwatch.org, because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic for this > list. > > The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen to > non JNC members: > - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread Internet > Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew Fitzgerald > about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB Initiative) > > > Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. > > - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some quarters > to create a "UN Security Council” > > > A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? > > - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi > Chehadé: ... > > > None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative as > in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global [Internet] governance”. > > Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC > statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to > participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of > the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what > was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different > participants. > > > I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative > (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial > meeting. On this much we agree. > > So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... should > for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns seen in the > making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN and > CGIbr. > > > Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I > certainly have ( > http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). > What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial > Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of other > civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their endorsement of > the Initiative. > > Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was > sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off list, > two emails in support, as well as one against). > > By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): > > > I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now because I > am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a flight a few hours > later. But I write this brief response just because you suggested in most > recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not. Anyway, others can respond > to the balance of your questions rather than me monopolising the > conversation. > > -- > 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 :: > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Tue Nov 18 15:33:09 2014 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 21:33:09 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative Message-ID: <1937007881.33908.1416342789383.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e25> Merci Louis !   Your argument is short ... and fairly convincing ! Therefore I do share your logical conclusion.   Warmest regards   Jean-Louis Fullsack   PS Will Eurolinc participate in the ITU WSIS+10 Review of Progress Made (sic) 3-day meeting next week ?     > Message du 18/11/14 18:43 > De : "Louis Pouzin (well)" > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "chlebrum ." > Copie à : "Baudouin Schombe" > Objet : Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative > > Hi all, > > Quite obviously if WEF is interested in CS joining in NMI it's because it helps WEF interests, which are well known to side with power and money. The idea of influencing WEF for CS interests sounds like fairy tale. CS would be trapped in accepting to appear supporting WEF interests, and would lose credibility. > > Therefore I think CS should not participate in the NMI. > > Louis. > - - - > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 3:20 PM, chlebrum . wrote: > "It looks like copineries and friendships circles." That's all... and it's a pity! > Chantal Lebrument Courriel: chlebrum at gmail.com > Mob: +33 6 8369 5460 > 2014-11-18 14:55 GMT+01:00 Baudouin Schombe : >  My question becomes increasingly growing: > 1. What happens to the NetMundial? > 2. NetMundial initiative is different from NetMundial launched in Brazil? > 3. All these groupings of civil society are more partisan and exclusive selections. It looks like copineries and friendships circles. > I think we should take into account national and regional realities. Whether we talk or IGF NetMundial we need from considerations of each country because everything is based on some national issues is our continental location. > All these debates within civil society suggests a crisis of leadership with all its consequences. > What we want exactly? > With representation from civil society in UNCTAD, there has been exclusion; for MAG, so many asctuces and in the current situation for NetMundial again and again discriminatory policies. > Ultimately, whatever the plurality of civil society, should understand that many plurality of concepts also need? > 2014-11-18 12:32 GMT+01:00 Mawaki Chango : > Dear All, > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't repeat the background details. In the middle of the night last night, before hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing catch-up with deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, they are willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the NMI Coordination Council. > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership of CSCG member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI process or not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations we've been having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and with the membership of our respective organizations.) After this we should be able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position about our participation in the NMI process.  > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be brief. State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement and, if you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you if you could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph (as we just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see what I mean.)  > Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 18 16:20:27 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 08:20:27 +1100 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Just following up on the information put forward by Mawaki below. As a result of further discussions over the last 24 hours the situation if we participate could be CSCG Nomcom receives all nominations for civil society participation for evaluation. CSCG Nomcom recommends one candidate per geographic region and submits with reasons. NMI convenes a (virtual) meeting with CSCG Nomcom and their transitional council to discuss any issues arising, with a view to reaching a rough consensus agreement if there are any issues with our nominations. If there is a strong dissenting voice from another area of civil society they may also be invited to participate – after discussion with us. Their suggestion is for any such discussion to be livestreamed. This is all new and currently being discussed within CSCG, but it represents a stronger commitment to CS choosing its own representatives. Passed on for the sake of clarity as regards what our participation in choosing representatives would look like. But this is of course only one factor in people making a decision here. From: Mawaki Chango Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 10:32 PM To: Internet Governance Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative Dear All, You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't repeat the background details. In the middle of the night last night, before hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing catch-up with deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, they are willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the NMI Coordination Council. Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership of CSCG member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI process or not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations we've been having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and with the membership of our respective organizations.) After this we should be able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position about our participation in the NMI process. So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be brief. State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement and, if you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you if you could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph (as we just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see what I mean.) Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 18 17:57:27 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 04:27:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <1937007881.33908.1416342789383.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e25> References: <1937007881.33908.1416342789383.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e25> Message-ID: <546BCED7.1080704@itforchange.net> I am strongly against IGC joining the NetMundial Initiative. The reasons for this have been argued earlier here, and also contained in this statement http://justnetcoalition.org/NMI-neoliberal-caravan . Louis makes the argument rather clear and pithily. I have seen two kinds of logics forwarded by those who wish to join the NMI process, which I paraphrase as follows: (1) It is an important, perhaps central, global IG process, and if CS does not join, it will lose out (2) It is not such a central global IG process /whereby/ it is not of of huge import or significance that the World Economic Forum (against which incidentally the World Social Forum shaped us, as the more natural home of global civil society) has a central driving role in it.. The two arguments appear contradictory to me. Therefore the overall case to join the initiative is rather weak and unsustainable in my view. If IGC, which came out of the umbrella CS grouping of the WSIS process, joins a WEF driven initiative, which is posited as a central global governance space, where 'solutions' to key public policy issues will be sought, it would militate against its historical and current legitimacy. It will be a very bad day for the civil society. parminder On Wednesday 19 November 2014 02:03 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > Merci Louis ! > > Your argument is short ... and fairly convincing ! Therefore I do > share your logical conclusion. > > Warmest regards > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > PS Will Eurolinc participate in the ITU WSIS+10 Review of Progress > Made (sic) 3-day meeting next week ? > > > > > > > > Message du 18/11/14 18:43 > > De : "Louis Pouzin (well)" > > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > , "chlebrum ." > > Copie à : "Baudouin Schombe" > > Objet : Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS > participation in NETmundial Initiative > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > Quite obviously if WEF is interested in CS joining in NMI it's > because it helps WEF interests, which are well known to side with > power and money. The idea of influencing WEF for CS interests > sounds like fairy tale. CS would be trapped in accepting to appear > supporting WEF interests, and would lose credibility. > > > > Therefore I think CS should not participate in the NMI. > > > > Louis. > > > - - - > > > > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 3:20 PM, chlebrum . > wrote: > > > > "Itlooks likecopineriesand friendshipscircles." > That's all... and it's a pity! > > > > Chantal Lebrument > Courriel: c hlebrum at gmail.com > > > > Mob: +33 6 8369 5460 > > > > 2014-11-18 14:55 GMT+01:00 Baudouin Schombe > >: > > > > My question becomes increasingly growing: > > 1. What happens to the NetMundial? > > 2. NetMundial initiative is different from NetMundial > launched in Brazil? > > 3. All these groupings of civil society are more > partisan and exclusive selections. It looks like > copineries and friendships circles. > > I think we should take into account national and > regional realities. Whether we talk or IGF NetMundial we > need from considerations of each country because > everything is based on some national issues is our > continental location. > > All these debates within civil society suggests a crisis > of leadership with all its consequences. > > What we want exactly? > > With representation from civil society in UNCTAD, there > has been exclusion; for MAG, so many asctuces and in the > current situation for NetMundial again and again > discriminatory policies. > > Ultimately, whatever the plurality of civil society, > should understand that many plurality of concepts also need? > > > > 2014-11-18 12:32 GMT+01:00 Mawaki Chango > >: > > > > Dear All, > > > > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so > I won't repeat the background details. In the middle > of the night last night, before hitting the bed after > a long and drawn out day playing catch-up with > deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded > the NMI Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG > enquiry. Basically, they are willing to let the CSCG > vet CS candidates to be part of the NMI Coordination > Council. > > > > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the > membership of CSCG member entities as to whether to > get involved in the NMI process or not. I believe this > is the last step in the consultations we've been > having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the > CSCG and with the membership of our respective > organizations.) After this we should be able to give a > definite answer, formulate a definite position about > our participation in the NMI process. > > > > So what do you think? Please get right to the point > and be brief. State your preference for IGC > Involvement or No involvement and, if you care to > provide us with such, I would be grateful to you if > you could keep your supporting argument in one short > paragraph (as we just want to take the "temperature of > the room" if you see what I mean.) > > > > Thank you for your understanding. > Best regards. > > > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From amedinagomez at gmail.com Tue Nov 18 18:14:17 2014 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=C3=B3mez?=) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 18:14:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <546BCED7.1080704@itforchange.net> References: <1937007881.33908.1416342789383.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e25> <546BCED7.1080704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hello everyone What are the possible options. Participate or not. What are advantages and benefits. I think the CS must be present. It is my recommendation 2014-11-18 17:57 GMT-05:00 parminder : > > I am strongly against IGC joining the NetMundial Initiative. > > The reasons for this have been argued earlier here, and also contained in > this statement http://justnetcoalition.org/NMI-neoliberal-caravan . > > Louis makes the argument rather clear and pithily. > > I have seen two kinds of logics forwarded by those who wish to join the > NMI process, which I paraphrase as follows: > > (1) It is an important, perhaps central, global IG process, and if CS does > not join, it will lose out > > (2) It is not such a central global IG process *whereby* it is not of of > huge import or significance that the World Economic Forum (against which > incidentally the World Social Forum shaped us, as the more natural home of > global civil society) has a central driving role in it.. > > The two arguments appear contradictory to me. Therefore the overall case > to join the initiative is rather weak and unsustainable in my view. > > If IGC, which came out of the umbrella CS grouping of the WSIS process, > joins a WEF driven initiative, which is posited as a central global > governance space, where 'solutions' to key public policy issues will be > sought, it would militate against its historical and current legitimacy. It > will be a very bad day for the civil society. > > parminder > > On Wednesday 19 November 2014 02:03 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > Merci Louis ! > > > > Your argument is short ... and fairly convincing ! Therefore I do share > your logical conclusion. > > > > Warmest regards > > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > PS Will Eurolinc participate in the ITU WSIS+10 Review of Progress Made > (sic) 3-day meeting next week ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Message du 18/11/14 18:43 > > De : "Louis Pouzin (well)" > > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > , > "chlebrum ." > > Copie à : "Baudouin Schombe" > > > Objet : Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS > participation in NETmundial Initiative > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > Quite obviously if WEF is interested in CS joining in NMI it's because > it helps WEF interests, which are well known to side with power and money. > The idea of influencing WEF for CS interests sounds like fairy tale. CS > would be trapped in accepting to appear supporting WEF interests, and would > lose credibility. > > > > Therefore I think CS should not participate in the NMI. > > > > Louis. > > > - - - > > > > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 3:20 PM, chlebrum . wrote: > > >> >> "It looks like copineries and friendships circles." >> That's all... and it's a pity! >> >> > >> Chantal Lebrument >> Courriel: c hlebrum at gmail.com >> > >> Mob: +33 6 8369 5460 >> >> > >> 2014-11-18 14:55 GMT+01:00 Baudouin Schombe : >> > >>> >>> My question becomes increasingly growing: >>> > 1. What happens to the NetMundial? >>> > 2. NetMundial initiative is different from NetMundial launched in >>> Brazil? >>> > 3. All these groupings of civil society are more partisan and exclusive >>> selections. It looks like copineries and friendships circles. >>> > I think we should take into account national and regional realities. Whether >>> we talk or IGF NetMundial we need from considerations of each country because >>> everything is based on some national issues is our continental location. >>> > All these debates within civil society suggests a crisis of leadership with >>> all its consequences. >>> > What we want exactly? >>> > With representation from civil society in UNCTAD, there has been >>> exclusion; for MAG, so many asctuces and in the current situation for >>> NetMundial again and again discriminatory policies. >>> > Ultimately, whatever the plurality of civil society, should understand >>> that many plurality of concepts also need? >>> >>> > >>> 2014-11-18 12:32 GMT+01:00 Mawaki Chango : >>> > >>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> > >>>> You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't repeat >>>> the background details. In the middle of the night last night, before >>>> hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing catch-up with >>>> deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI Transitional >>>> Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, they are willing to let the >>>> CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the NMI Coordination Council. >>>> >>>> > >>>> Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership of CSCG >>>> member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI process or not. I >>>> believe this is the last step in the consultations we've been having (with >>>> NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and with the membership of our >>>> respective organizations.) After this we should be able to give a definite >>>> answer, formulate a definite position about our participation in the NMI >>>> process. >>>> >>>> > >>>> So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be brief. State >>>> your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement and, if you care to >>>> provide us with such, I would be grateful to you if you could keep your >>>> supporting argument in one short paragraph (as we just want to take the >>>> "temperature of the room" if you see what I mean.) >>>> >>>> > >>>> Thank you for your understanding. >>>> Best regards. >>>> >>>> > >>>> 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 > > -- Antonio Medina Gómez Presidente Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet presidencia at acui.co @amedinagomez Skype amedinagomez Celular 3118689626 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 18 18:36:29 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 00:36:29 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative References: <546A6801.70707@itforchange.net> <143101d002c4$369f27b0$a3dd7710$@gmail.com> <915854CC-711C-48FA-92AC-B9014B62EE37@eff.org> <20141118140406.036b546d@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164289A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <179f01d00343$d7a21440$86e63cc0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164289C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <192101d00359$be75d3b0$3b617b10$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164289D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Michael I recognize your doubts, but I think you are wrong. There is a chance to take away "power functions" from the CC by strenghtening the "edges". w -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Gesendet: Di 18.11.2014 19:01 An: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Baudouin Schombe'; 'Norbert Bollow' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Betreff: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative Wolfgang We must be talking about different networks. The NMI as I understand it has ultimate centralized decision making (ie: the final say on appointments to the Steering Committee) and centralized control through the Steering Committee over financing/funding. In the NMI the intelligence may (or may not) be at the edges, but the power seems to be firmly entrenched at the centre. M -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 8:49 AM To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Baudouin Schombe; Norbert Bollow Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative Hi Michael in a decentralized network, the intelligence (and the power) is at the edges, not in the centre. A root server has no real power. It takes a query and sends it to the next server towards the final destination to enable communication between a sender and a receiver. Sender and receiver remain independent, but they benefit from their communication. To enable communication among independent national multistakeholder platforms would be produce benefit for both sides without creating a "power centre" in the middle of a network. Thatswhy the principle of network neutrality is so important. Take a ccTLD registry. The make their own Independent policy,b but they benefit from "best practices" via the CNSO. Wolfgang ergive (independent) -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Gesendet: Di 18.11.2014 16:25 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; 'Baudouin Schombe'; 'Norbert Bollow' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Betreff: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative All presumably under the gentlest but strongest and tightest control from the master spiders sitting at the centre of the web in Washington and Geneva. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 6:09 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Baudouin Schombe; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative I see NMI as an initiative which moves forward with innovative policy ideas into still unknown territory. One recommendation of NetMundial in Sau Paulo was to encourage the formation of national multistakeholder Internet Governance platforms which will help to deals with the local Internet Governance issues, taking into account the global and regional discussions. Zhis wold be a concret step where CS can ans has to become a driving force. NMI is a good opportunity a. to help the launch of such national platforms and b. to link them together in a decentralized and diversified "Internet Governance Web" which is based on the local realities, needs and challenges. Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Baudouin Schombe Gesendet: Di 18.11.2014 14:51 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow Cc: <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative Hello all, My question becomes increasingly growing: 1. What happens to the NetMundial? 2. NetMundial initiative is different from NetMundial launched in Brazil? 3. All these groupings of civil society are more partisan and exclusive selections. It looks like copineries and friendships circles. I think we should take into account national and regional realities. Whether we talk about IGF or NetMundial we need from considerations of each country because everything is based on some national issues is our continental location. All these debates within civil society suggests a crisis of leadership with all its consequences. What we want exactly? With representation from civil society in UNCTAD, there has been exclusion; for MAG, so many asctuces and in the current situation for NetMundial again and again discriminatory policies. Ultimately, whatever the plurality of civil society, should understand that many plurality of concepts also need? Baudouin 2014-11-18 14:04 GMT+01:00 Norbert Bollow : > Jeremy Malcolm (the representative of Best Bits in CSCG) wrote: > > > Via Norbert I have requested that JNC issue a public apology for > > wrongly stating in this article, along with much other dumping on > > civil society colleagues, that Best Bits is supporting the > > NETmundial Initiative. > > Before I reply to the substance of this accusation of lying, let me > quickly comment on why these facts (about which JNC is being accused > of having told a lie) have some importance: In view of the phenomenon > which were calling "the caravan for a neo-liberal capture of global > governance", it would in our view be a huge step forward if the > support for that could be reduced to those who are willing to publicly > admit and defend their support for it. From this perspective, it is a > very serious and significant systemic problem in civil society when > actions are taken which are in their effect supportive of this > "caravan", but where those who take or explicitly support such action > get away with simply disclaiming responsibility, or even claiming that > it didn't happen. (By contrast it is a legitimate course of action for > any of the concerned parties to admit to having made a mistake, and to > consequently change their stance.) > > Now to the substance of what we're accused of having been untruthful > about... > > The footnote which is referenced in this demand for an apology (and > which is the only place where any mention of Best Bits is made) reads > in full as follows: > > For example, on the basis of positive views expressed by APC, > BestBits, Diplo and NCSG, the chair of the Civil Society Coordination > Group (CSCG) has sent a very positive letter to NMI offering to > organize a selection process for civil society representatives for > NMI's coordination committee. Until now, only the Just Net Coalition > (JNC) has opposed this plan, and JNC will refuse to participate if it > goes forward. The other member organizations of CSCG are: Association > for Progressive Communications (APC), Best Bits, Civicus, Diplo > Foundation, Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), Non-Commercial > Stakeholders Group (NCSG). > > For context, this footnote is given in support of the assertion that > some "sections of civil society currently active in the area of > Internet ... have accepted the invitation from global corporate and > other elites to participate in the NetMundial Initiative". > > I maintain that the concerned letter > > * is indeed very positive, and that > > * it offers to organize a selection process for civil society > representatives for NMI's coordination committee, and that > > * it in fact represents acceptance in principle of the fundamental > concept of NMI and the invitation to participate. > > This is certainly how we in JNC read the letter, and it appears that > also ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé (one of the recipients) is understanding > the letter similarly, as Avri tweeted yesterday: "Fadi, praised the > letter from civil society asking to select is own members of the #NMI > council and legitimizing the initiative. #igeneva" > > But it is probably necessary at this point for everyone here to be > given the opportunity to be able to make up their minds for themselves > on whether, as JNC claims, this letter expresses acceptance in > principle of NMI. > > After all, JNC has in effect been accused of lying. The only way to > effectively counteract such an accusation is to present evidence that > what we're saying is in fact the truth about these events. > > JNC will of course be very happy if (as we're in fact suggesting in > the > statement) now enough CSCG members change their position so that on > the basis of that the CSCG position changes, and a corresponding > letter is sent which contradicts the initial quite positive stance. We > would certainly acknowledge such a welcome development in an updated > version of the statement. > > So here is the text of the concerned letter from CSCG's chair to NMI: > > """ > Dear Virgilio, Fadi and Richard, > > RE: NETMUNDIAL INITIATIVE COORDINATION COUNCIL > > I am writing to you on behalf of the Internet Governance Civil > Society Coordination Group (CSCG), in response to your call for > nominations for a Coordination Council for the new NetMundial > Initiative. > > I think you all know something of our organisation. We are a > "coalition of coalitions" of the major civil society groups working > on internet governance issues, formed specifically to ensure a > co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to > making civil society appointments to outside bodies. > > Our reach through the represented member coalitions (Internet > Governance Caucus, Association for Progressive Communications, > Diplo Foundation, Just Net Coalition, Best Bits, Civicus, and Non > Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN) extends to some thousands > of organisations. We provided the nominations for civil society > members appointed to various committees for the original NetMundial > initiative in Brazil and the 1net initiative, as well as > nominations for the recent IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group > renewal. > > A number of us listened in and participated on your webinar last > week. We are very pleased to see an effort underway to > collaboratively deal with some of the evolving issues in the > internet governance arena; and also pleased to see your strong > commitment to the NetMundial principles, and to a bottom up process > in bringing this into action. > > We have noted carefully the procedures outlined on your website for > nominations, and the commitment to one civil society representative > for each of the five regions outlined. You are aware of our > concerns, which I am sure you share, that the selection processes > be credible, involve stakeholder groups, and, as your nomination > process states, "formed through a bottom-up process, inspired by > the open and transparent approach employed by the organizers of the > São Paulo NETmundial meeting". > > We believe this can best be achieved if we work closely with you to > ensure that the civil society representation, and involvement in > selection of its representatives, is as strong, credible and > effective as possible, and make the following suggestions with this > end in mind. > > SUGGESTION ONE > > Although we could go through a separate nomination process and > forward a number of names to you, it seems to us that in the > current situation a more workable process would be to encourage > suitable civil society people to nominate as per your process, but > then work with you at the close of nominations to provide our > recommendations on the most suitable candidates. Depending on > circumstances, we could give you one recommended name per region, > or we could give a maximum of say three suitable names per region, > to enable you to consider intra-regional balance across stakeholder > groups. > > We would like your feedback on this option. If we were to follow > this process, we would need to receive from you full details of > each nomination received for civil society. We could undertake to > give completed recommendations within a week of the closing date; > ie by December 13. We employ well developed processes for achieving > such an outcome in a credible manner and can assure you than > necessary confidentiality in dealing with these documents would be > maintained. > > SUGGESTION TWO > > Additionally, we could have a representative work with you (the > transitional committee members) on finalising selections, and > writing up the rationale for decisions. We appreciate that if one > of us takes up such a role, the deliberations would be subject to > complete confidentiality, and this would be a facilitating role to > ensure the best possible selections. We would welcome your feedback > on this additional option as well. > > TIME CONSTRAINTS > > If we are to proceed with one or both of these options, we would > need to have your confirmation as to our participation in this > manner fairly quickly, so that we can inform our colleagues. Please > if possible get back to us this week, or advise when you will be > able to respond. > > We look forward to working with you and to a highly successful > collaborative initiative to address some important issues of mutual > concern. We would like to see a strong, widely endorsed, and > effective civil society presence in developing this initiative, and > look forward to working with you to achieve this. > > Thank you in advance for your cooperation. > > Sincerely, > > Ian Peter > Independent Chair > """ > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC* *ICANN/AFRALO Member* *ISOC Member* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.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 mhaces at nic.mx Tue Nov 18 19:04:14 2014 From: mhaces at nic.mx (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Manuel_Haces_Avi=F1a?=) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 00:04:14 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164289D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <546A6801.70707@itforchange.net> <143101d002c4$369f27b0$a3dd7710$@gmail.com> <915854CC-711C-48FA-92AC-B9014B62EE37@eff.org> <20141118140406.036b546d@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164289A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <179f01d00343$d7a21440$86e63cc0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164289C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <192101d00359$be75d3b0$3b617b10$@gmail.com>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164289D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Dear Wolfgang, Just by mere curiosity; could you explain further how could the edges be strengthened, when there is a permanent power quota assigned in the center of the organization? (something I think goes against the so-called bottom up approach). I am really looking forward to find arguments to support the permanent places. Manuel Haces -----Original Message----- From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Received: martes, 18 nov 2014, 5:41PM To: michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com]; governance at lists.igcaucus.org [governance at lists.igcaucus.org]; Baudouin Schombe [baudouin.schombe at gmail.com]; Norbert Bollow [nb at bollow.ch] CC: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits at lists.bestbits.net] Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative Hi Michael I recognize your doubts, but I think you are wrong. There is a chance to take away "power functions" from the CC by strenghtening the "edges". w -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Gesendet: Di 18.11.2014 19:01 An: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Baudouin Schombe'; 'Norbert Bollow' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Betreff: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative Wolfgang We must be talking about different networks. The NMI as I understand it has ultimate centralized decision making (ie: the final say on appointments to the Steering Committee) and centralized control through the Steering Committee over financing/funding. In the NMI the intelligence may (or may not) be at the edges, but the power seems to be firmly entrenched at the centre. M -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 8:49 AM To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Baudouin Schombe; Norbert Bollow Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative Hi Michael in a decentralized network, the intelligence (and the power) is at the edges, not in the centre. A root server has no real power. It takes a query and sends it to the next server towards the final destination to enable communication between a sender and a receiver. Sender and receiver remain independent, but they benefit from their communication. To enable communication among independent national multistakeholder platforms would be produce benefit for both sides without creating a "power centre" in the middle of a network. Thatswhy the principle of network neutrality is so important. Take a ccTLD registry. The make their own Independent policy,b but they benefit from "best practices" via the CNSO. Wolfgang ergive (independent) -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Gesendet: Di 18.11.2014 16:25 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; 'Baudouin Schombe'; 'Norbert Bollow' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Betreff: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative All presumably under the gentlest but strongest and tightest control from the master spiders sitting at the centre of the web in Washington and Geneva. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 6:09 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Baudouin Schombe; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative I see NMI as an initiative which moves forward with innovative policy ideas into still unknown territory. One recommendation of NetMundial in Sau Paulo was to encourage the formation of national multistakeholder Internet Governance platforms which will help to deals with the local Internet Governance issues, taking into account the global and regional discussions. Zhis wold be a concret step where CS can ans has to become a driving force. NMI is a good opportunity a. to help the launch of such national platforms and b. to link them together in a decentralized and diversified "Internet Governance Web" which is based on the local realities, needs and challenges. Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Baudouin Schombe Gesendet: Di 18.11.2014 14:51 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow Cc: <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative Hello all, My question becomes increasingly growing: 1. What happens to the NetMundial? 2. NetMundial initiative is different from NetMundial launched in Brazil? 3. All these groupings of civil society are more partisan and exclusive selections. It looks like copineries and friendships circles. I think we should take into account national and regional realities. Whether we talk about IGF or NetMundial we need from considerations of each country because everything is based on some national issues is our continental location. All these debates within civil society suggests a crisis of leadership with all its consequences. What we want exactly? With representation from civil society in UNCTAD, there has been exclusion; for MAG, so many asctuces and in the current situation for NetMundial again and again discriminatory policies. Ultimately, whatever the plurality of civil society, should understand that many plurality of concepts also need? Baudouin 2014-11-18 14:04 GMT+01:00 Norbert Bollow : > Jeremy Malcolm (the representative of Best Bits in CSCG) wrote: > > > Via Norbert I have requested that JNC issue a public apology for > > wrongly stating in this article, along with much other dumping on > > civil society colleagues, that Best Bits is supporting the > > NETmundial Initiative. > > Before I reply to the substance of this accusation of lying, let me > quickly comment on why these facts (about which JNC is being accused > of having told a lie) have some importance: In view of the phenomenon > which were calling "the caravan for a neo-liberal capture of global > governance", it would in our view be a huge step forward if the > support for that could be reduced to those who are willing to publicly > admit and defend their support for it. From this perspective, it is a > very serious and significant systemic problem in civil society when > actions are taken which are in their effect supportive of this > "caravan", but where those who take or explicitly support such action > get away with simply disclaiming responsibility, or even claiming that > it didn't happen. (By contrast it is a legitimate course of action for > any of the concerned parties to admit to having made a mistake, and to > consequently change their stance.) > > Now to the substance of what we're accused of having been untruthful > about... > > The footnote which is referenced in this demand for an apology (and > which is the only place where any mention of Best Bits is made) reads > in full as follows: > > For example, on the basis of positive views expressed by APC, > BestBits, Diplo and NCSG, the chair of the Civil Society Coordination > Group (CSCG) has sent a very positive letter to NMI offering to > organize a selection process for civil society representatives for > NMI's coordination committee. Until now, only the Just Net Coalition > (JNC) has opposed this plan, and JNC will refuse to participate if it > goes forward. The other member organizations of CSCG are: Association > for Progressive Communications (APC), Best Bits, Civicus, Diplo > Foundation, Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), Non-Commercial > Stakeholders Group (NCSG). > > For context, this footnote is given in support of the assertion that > some "sections of civil society currently active in the area of > Internet ... have accepted the invitation from global corporate and > other elites to participate in the NetMundial Initiative". > > I maintain that the concerned letter > > * is indeed very positive, and that > > * it offers to organize a selection process for civil society > representatives for NMI's coordination committee, and that > > * it in fact represents acceptance in principle of the fundamental > concept of NMI and the invitation to participate. > > This is certainly how we in JNC read the letter, and it appears that > also ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé (one of the recipients) is understanding > the letter similarly, as Avri tweeted yesterday: "Fadi, praised the > letter from civil society asking to select is own members of the #NMI > council and legitimizing the initiative. #igeneva" > > But it is probably necessary at this point for everyone here to be > given the opportunity to be able to make up their minds for themselves > on whether, as JNC claims, this letter expresses acceptance in > principle of NMI. > > After all, JNC has in effect been accused of lying. The only way to > effectively counteract such an accusation is to present evidence that > what we're saying is in fact the truth about these events. > > JNC will of course be very happy if (as we're in fact suggesting in > the > statement) now enough CSCG members change their position so that on > the basis of that the CSCG position changes, and a corresponding > letter is sent which contradicts the initial quite positive stance. We > would certainly acknowledge such a welcome development in an updated > version of the statement. > > So here is the text of the concerned letter from CSCG's chair to NMI: > > """ > Dear Virgilio, Fadi and Richard, > > RE: NETMUNDIAL INITIATIVE COORDINATION COUNCIL > > I am writing to you on behalf of the Internet Governance Civil > Society Coordination Group (CSCG), in response to your call for > nominations for a Coordination Council for the new NetMundial > Initiative. > > I think you all know something of our organisation. We are a > "coalition of coalitions" of the major civil society groups working > on internet governance issues, formed specifically to ensure a > co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to > making civil society appointments to outside bodies. > > Our reach through the represented member coalitions (Internet > Governance Caucus, Association for Progressive Communications, > Diplo Foundation, Just Net Coalition, Best Bits, Civicus, and Non > Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN) extends to some thousands > of organisations. We provided the nominations for civil society > members appointed to various committees for the original NetMundial > initiative in Brazil and the 1net initiative, as well as > nominations for the recent IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group > renewal. > > A number of us listened in and participated on your webinar last > week. We are very pleased to see an effort underway to > collaboratively deal with some of the evolving issues in the > internet governance arena; and also pleased to see your strong > commitment to the NetMundial principles, and to a bottom up process > in bringing this into action. > > We have noted carefully the procedures outlined on your website for > nominations, and the commitment to one civil society representative > for each of the five regions outlined. You are aware of our > concerns, which I am sure you share, that the selection processes > be credible, involve stakeholder groups, and, as your nomination > process states, "formed through a bottom-up process, inspired by > the open and transparent approach employed by the organizers of the > São Paulo NETmundial meeting". > > We believe this can best be achieved if we work closely with you to > ensure that the civil society representation, and involvement in > selection of its representatives, is as strong, credible and > effective as possible, and make the following suggestions with this > end in mind. > > SUGGESTION ONE > > Although we could go through a separate nomination process and > forward a number of names to you, it seems to us that in the > current situation a more workable process would be to encourage > suitable civil society people to nominate as per your process, but > then work with you at the close of nominations to provide our > recommendations on the most suitable candidates. Depending on > circumstances, we could give you one recommended name per region, > or we could give a maximum of say three suitable names per region, > to enable you to consider intra-regional balance across stakeholder > groups. > > We would like your feedback on this option. If we were to follow > this process, we would need to receive from you full details of > each nomination received for civil society. We could undertake to > give completed recommendations within a week of the closing date; > ie by December 13. We employ well developed processes for achieving > such an outcome in a credible manner and can assure you than > necessary confidentiality in dealing with these documents would be > maintained. > > SUGGESTION TWO > > Additionally, we could have a representative work with you (the > transitional committee members) on finalising selections, and > writing up the rationale for decisions. We appreciate that if one > of us takes up such a role, the deliberations would be subject to > complete confidentiality, and this would be a facilitating role to > ensure the best possible selections. We would welcome your feedback > on this additional option as well. > > TIME CONSTRAINTS > > If we are to proceed with one or both of these options, we would > need to have your confirmation as to our participation in this > manner fairly quickly, so that we can inform our colleagues. Please > if possible get back to us this week, or advise when you will be > able to respond. > > We look forward to working with you and to a highly successful > collaborative initiative to address some important issues of mutual > concern. We would like to see a strong, widely endorsed, and > effective civil society presence in developing this initiative, and > look forward to working with you to achieve this. > > Thank you in advance for your cooperation. > > Sincerely, > > Ian Peter > Independent Chair > """ > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC* *ICANN/AFRALO Member* *ISOC Member* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 18 19:23:36 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 05:53:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <546BCED7.1080704@itforchange.net> References: <1937007881.33908.1416342789383.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e25> <546BCED7.1080704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <149c56ecf70.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> We should have a seat at this table as others have pointed out. I agree with Wolfgang On November 19, 2014 4:27:54 AM parminder wrote: > I am strongly against IGC joining the NetMundial Initiative. > > The reasons for this have been argued earlier here, and also contained > in this statement http://justnetcoalition.org/NMI-neoliberal-caravan . > > Louis makes the argument rather clear and pithily. > > I have seen two kinds of logics forwarded by those who wish to join the > NMI process, which I paraphrase as follows: > > (1) It is an important, perhaps central, global IG process, and if CS > does not join, it will lose out > > (2) It is not such a central global IG process /whereby/ it is not of of > huge import or significance that the World Economic Forum (against which > incidentally the World Social Forum shaped us, as the more natural home > of global civil society) has a central driving role in it.. > > The two arguments appear contradictory to me. Therefore the overall case > to join the initiative is rather weak and unsustainable in my view. > > If IGC, which came out of the umbrella CS grouping of the WSIS process, > joins a WEF driven initiative, which is posited as a central global > governance space, where 'solutions' to key public policy issues will be > sought, it would militate against its historical and current legitimacy. > It will be a very bad day for the civil society. > > parminder > > On Wednesday 19 November 2014 02:03 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > > > Merci Louis ! > > > > Your argument is short ... and fairly convincing ! Therefore I do > > share your logical conclusion. > > > > Warmest regards > > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > PS Will Eurolinc participate in the ITU WSIS+10 Review of Progress > > Made (sic) 3-day meeting next week ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Message du 18/11/14 18:43 > > > De : "Louis Pouzin (well)" > > > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > > , "chlebrum ." > > > Copie à : "Baudouin Schombe" > > > Objet : Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS > > participation in NETmundial Initiative > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Quite obviously if WEF is interested in CS joining in NMI it's > > because it helps WEF interests, which are well known to side with > > power and money. The idea of influencing WEF for CS interests > > sounds like fairy tale. CS would be trapped in accepting to appear > > supporting WEF interests, and would lose credibility. > > > > > > Therefore I think CS should not participate in the NMI. > > > > > > Louis. > > > > > - - - > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 3:20 PM, chlebrum . > > wrote: > > > > > > > "Itlooks likecopineriesand friendshipscircles." > > That's all... and it's a pity! > > > > > > > Chantal Lebrument > > Courriel: c hlebrum at gmail.com > > > > > > > Mob: +33 6 8369 5460 > > > > > > > 2014-11-18 14:55 GMT+01:00 Baudouin Schombe > > >: > > > > > > > My question becomes increasingly growing: > > > 1. What happens to the NetMundial? > > > 2. NetMundial initiative is different from NetMundial > > launched in Brazil? > > > 3. All these groupings of civil society are more > > partisan and exclusive selections. It looks like > > copineries and friendships circles. > > > I think we should take into account national and > > regional realities. Whether we talk or IGF NetMundial we > > need from considerations of each country because > > everything is based on some national issues is our > > continental location. > > > All these debates within civil society suggests a crisis > > of leadership with all its consequences. > > > What we want exactly? > > > With representation from civil society in UNCTAD, there > > has been exclusion; for MAG, so many asctuces and in the > > current situation for NetMundial again and again > > discriminatory policies. > > > Ultimately, whatever the plurality of civil society, > > should understand that many plurality of concepts also need? > > > > > > > 2014-11-18 12:32 GMT+01:00 Mawaki Chango > > >: > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so > > I won't repeat the background details. In the middle > > of the night last night, before hitting the bed after > > a long and drawn out day playing catch-up with > > deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded > > the NMI Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG > > enquiry. Basically, they are willing to let the CSCG > > vet CS candidates to be part of the NMI Coordination > > Council. > > > > > > > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the > > membership of CSCG member entities as to whether to > > get involved in the NMI process or not. I believe this > > is the last step in the consultations we've been > > having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the > > CSCG and with the membership of our respective > > organizations.) After this we should be able to give a > > definite answer, formulate a definite position about > > our participation in the NMI process. > > > > > > > So what do you think? Please get right to the point > > and be brief. State your preference for IGC > > Involvement or No involvement and, if you care to > > provide us with such, I would be grateful to you if > > you could keep your supporting argument in one short > > paragraph (as we just want to take the "temperature of > > the room" if you see what I mean.) > > > > > > > Thank you for your understanding. > > Best regards. > > > > > > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 18 20:30:37 2014 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 04:30:37 +0300 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for candidates to IGC co-coordinatorship In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Mawaki, you did an excellent job at the IGC with much energy and dedication. As we have seen before, the work of the coordinator is not an easy one. We salute you On 18/11/2014, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Dear All, > > Now that the excitement of the new MAG is over it's time for us at the IGC > to have our own election. We need to elect a second Co-coordinator. The > results of the elections for new Co-coordinators a year ago gave Mawaki a > one year term. As he already suggested at several occasions including > during the election last year, he is not in position to serve two more > years. In other words, Mawaki does not intend to stand again. > > We invite members of the IGC to nominate candidates (please check with them > first about their willingness to serve), or to nominate themselves as a > co-coordinator to serve from 2015-2017. > > Nominations will be open until 19th December, midnight UTC. > > Best regards, > > Mawaki Chango > Deirdre Williams > IGC Co-coordinators > -- ______________________ 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 iza at anr.org Tue Nov 18 21:18:37 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 11:18:37 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Statement to present at World Internet Conference @ Wuzhen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Here is Google Doc document I share with you guys. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vYdPeOrnWRuGbjbXStAeQHJ3BcbQ0j_ARw20eqcnuj0/edit?usp=sharing The Wi-Fi connection in the conference venue is not always stable. Hope some others like James also share this task of reporting. I took a note from the morning session on new media, quite interesting. izumi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr Wed Nov 19 02:05:45 2014 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:05:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1416380745.90255.YahooMailIosMobile@web28706.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Nov 19 02:22:54 2014 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (Guru) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 12:52:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> Dear Mawaki I would like to cite from two sources: A. WSIS Declaration of Principles - http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html (the very first two clauses) 1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world*, *assembled in Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 2. Our challenge* is to harness the potential of information and communication technology to promote the development goals of the Millennium Declaration, namely the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; achievement of universal primary education; promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women; reduction of child mortality; improvement of maternal health; to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring environmental sustainability; and development of global partnerships for development for the attainment of a more peaceful, just and prosperous world. We also reiterate our commitment to the achievement of sustainable development and agreed development goals, as contained in the Johannesburg Declaration and Plan of Implementation and the Monterrey Consensus, and other outcomes of relevant United Nations Summits. I now will cite from the WEF site - http://www.weforum.org/our-members Begin Our Members The World Economic Forum is a membership organization. Our Members comprise 1,000 of the world’s top corporations, global enterprises usually with more than US$ 5 billion in turnover. These enterprises rank among the top companies within their industry and play a leading role in shaping the future of their industry and region. Some of our Member companies join the Forum’s Strategic and Industry Partnership communities, which are designed to deepen their engagement with the Forum’s events, project and initiatives. The Forum’s Members are at the heart of all our activities. End It is clear that WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated work also is structuring our participation in the information society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global surveillance, which helps them in their goals of political-economic domination / colonisation Participating in forums anchored in such a space will only legitimise their power. I am clear that IGC should not participate in the NMI. thanks and regards Guru Gurumurthy Kasinathan Director, IT for Change In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC www.ITforChange.Net| Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890 http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum On Tuesday 18 November 2014 05:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Dear All, > > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't repeat > the background details. In the middle of the night last night, before > hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing catch-up with > deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI > Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, they are > willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the NMI > Coordination Council. > > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership of CSCG > member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI process or > not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations we've been > having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and with the > membership of our respective organizations.) After this we should be > able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position about > our participation in the NMI process. > > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be brief. > State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement and, if > you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you if you > could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph (as we > just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see what I > mean.) > > Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. > > Mawaki > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Nov 19 02:36:13 2014 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (Guru) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 13:06:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <546C46EF.7030206@ITforChange.net> References: <546C46EF.7030206@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <546C486D.6050004@ITforChange.net> apologies for cross posting regards Guru for those inclined to participate in the NMI (and according legitimacy to a power group, and perhaps as Ian points as a possible danger 'a corporate takeover of internet governance '), I would point to http://www.nationofchange.org/2014/11/17/sordid-tales-selfishness-super-rich and many similar articles on that site... -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 12:59:51 +0530 From: Guru Reply-To: Guru To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Often we seem to be saying that participation is sufficient end in itself for what purpose for whose gain who do we represent in our participation who will lose by the participation who holds the power in the participation forum/ makes the rules of the game how much can we fool ourselves about the power we have in the forum These questions are extremely important to engage with. On the other hand, we can only wake up those who are sleeping (and hopefully there are many who may wake up at this point - of a neo-liberal attempt to capture of global governance), not those who pretend to be.... regards Guru On Wednesday 19 November 2014 02:50 AM, Grace Githaiga wrote: > I would go for CS to participate if the request to conduct own > nominations for representation is accepted. It is easier to > shape/influence processes if we are part of them. > > Rgds > Grace > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com > To: jmalcolm at eff.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 21:31:17 +1100 > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial > Initiative - RFC > > At this point of time discussions are going on in a number of forums > as regards participation, not just here; and it would be helpful if > the debate was about whether to participate or not, not about who said > what when. > As an aid to this, and perhaps to focus discussion a little, here is a > brief summary of some of the arguments for and against that I have > seen advanced. Not a complete list, but perhaps this might help some > people to understand that other people have perspectives that differ > from their own. i would urge people to add their own perspectives to > these so that an informed decision is made. > > FOR INVOLVEMENT > > With ITU a governments only forum and no real will to change, and IGF > as a forum with no power to make recommendations or take decisions and > again no will to change, there is no credible venue to initiate action > on non technical issues or issues not within the remit of Istar > organisations These would include surveillance issues, human rights > issues, net neutrality issues, to name a few. > > The solid commitment to NetMundial principles promised, if carried out > in practice, would create a credible and open initiative > > There is a need fora representative forum capable of moving us forward > on a range of issues not covered by existing institutions > > Participation is strongly supported by some sections of civil society > > AGAINST INVOLVEMENT > > The last thing we need is a corporate takeover of internet governance > and this could become that > > ISOC has withdrawn > > Participation is strongly opposed by some sections of civil society > > This initiative has a track record of poor communication > > Ian Peter > > *From:* Jeremy Malcolm > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 18, 2014 2:53 PM > *To:* Best Bits > *Subject:* [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative > - RFC > By now everyone will have read from previous threads that ISOC and the > Just Net Coalition (JNC) have both decided not to participate in the > NETmundial Initiative, and you may have also have read some false > information that Best Bits and other networks represented on the Civil > Society Coordination Group (CSCG) *have* decided to participate. As > Ian Peter's clarifying message setting out the truth of the matter > should have made clear, that is *not* the case. All that has happened > is that the we have obtained as much assurance as we can that *if* we > decide to participate, then the Secretariat (ICANN, WEF and CGI.br > ) will accept our self-nomination process rather than > choosing civil society representatives independently. > Now we turn to you, our communities, to provide us with guidance about > whether to proceed further or not. Some views have already been > expressed pro and con. I have been (and remain) publicly critical > about the NETmundial Initiative, but on the other hand the reasoning > ISOC and JNC give for boycotting it is rather specious, because they > characterise the initiative as being something that it doesn't purport > to be - ie. a single central policy-making body for Internet > governance. This is an alarmist critique that turns the NETmundial > Initiative into an exaggerated ITU-style bogeyman. > So whilst there is certainly room for disagreement about whether we > should bestow the benefit of our participation on the Initiative (I > remain deeply conflicted about this), let's decide on the basis of > factual pro and con arguments rather than oversimplifications about > the 1% taking over the Internet. Also note that a few civil society > representatives, including Human Rights Watch, have endorsed it > already and are featured on the carousel message on the front page of > netmundial.org . > So what do people think? If you haven't already shared your views, > please do so on this thread, within the next few days if possible. > -- > 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 :: > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, > visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr Wed Nov 19 02:43:23 2014 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:43:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] People with disabilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1416383003.19003.YahooMailIosMobile@web28704.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 19 02:54:51 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 03:54:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Statement to present at World Internet Conference @ Wuzhen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Izumi - very helpful. Deirdre On 18 November 2014 22:18, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Here is Google Doc document I share with you guys. > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vYdPeOrnWRuGbjbXStAeQHJ3BcbQ0j_ARw20eqcnuj0/edit?usp=sharing > > The Wi-Fi connection in the conference venue is not always stable. > > Hope some others like James also share this task of reporting. > > I took a note from the morning session on new media, quite interesting. > > izumi > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chlebrum at gmail.com Wed Nov 19 03:35:46 2014 From: chlebrum at gmail.com (chlebrum .) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 09:35:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: Excellent +1 on behalf on EUROLINC Chantal Lebrument ​Courriel: c hlebrum at gmail.com Mob: +33 6 8369 5460 2014-11-19 8:22 GMT+01:00 Guru : > Dear Mawaki > > I would like to cite from two sources: > > A. WSIS Declaration of Principles - > http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html (the very first > two clauses) > > 1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world*, *assembled in > Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on > the Information Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to build > a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, > where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and > knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their > full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving > their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the > Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the > Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > 2. Our challenge* is to harness the potential of information and > communication technology to promote the development goals of the Millennium > Declaration, namely the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; > achievement of universal primary education; promotion of gender equality > and empowerment of women; reduction of child mortality; improvement of > maternal health; to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring > environmental sustainability; and development of global partnerships for > development for the attainment of a more peaceful, just and prosperous > world. We also reiterate our commitment to the achievement of sustainable > development and agreed development goals, as contained in the Johannesburg > Declaration and Plan of Implementation and the Monterrey Consensus, and > other outcomes of relevant United Nations Summits. > > I now will cite from the WEF site - http://www.weforum.org/our-members > > Begin > Our Members > The World Economic Forum is a membership organization. Our Members > comprise 1,000 of the world’s top corporations, global enterprises usually > with more than US$ 5 billion in turnover. These enterprises rank among the > top companies within their industry and play a leading role in shaping the > future of their industry and region. Some of our Member companies join the > Forum’s Strategic and Industry Partnership communities, which are designed > to deepen their engagement with the Forum’s events, project and > initiatives. The Forum’s Members are at the heart of all our activities. > End > > It is clear that WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen > the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles > from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from > using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in > authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated work > also is structuring our participation in the information society in many > unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are in > cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global > surveillance, which helps them in their goals of political-economic > domination / colonisation > > Participating in forums anchored in such a space will only legitimise > their power. I am clear that IGC should not participate in the NMI. > > thanks and regards > Guru > > Gurumurthy Kasinathan > Director, IT for Change > In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC > www.ITforChange.Net| Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890 > http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum > > > On Tuesday 18 November 2014 05:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't repeat > > the background details. In the middle of the night last night, before > > hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing catch-up with > > deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI > > Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, they are > > willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the NMI > > Coordination Council. > > > > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership of CSCG > > member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI process or > > not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations we've been > > having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and with the > > membership of our respective organizations.) After this we should be > > able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position about > > our participation in the NMI process. > > > > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be brief. > > State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement and, if > > you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you if you > > could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph (as we > > just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see what I > > mean.) > > > > Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. > > > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 19 04:05:31 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:05:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE In-Reply-To: References: <96408CD9A453499FB72972C951A44766@Toshiba> <546AD542.20702@itforchange.net> <7CD37A0771344819B39A327EA5AEBFC4@Toshiba> Message-ID: <20141119100531.0d6e36f7@swan.bollow.ch> On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:41:07 +0530 Sivasubramanian M wrote: > Just Net Coalition's position could be considered rather rushed. NMI was initially announced 28 August 2014. On September 2, I attended a meeting in Istanbul with WEF's team for NMI (at that time, WEF was still along in driving NMI). On November 6, the newly revised NMI was launched, with changes in some areas but no significant changes to the underlying ideology. Hence there has been no shortage of time to become sufficiently deeply informed about the ideological underpinnings of NMI and to be now quite sure that we want to reject NMI on that basis -- as explained in http://justnetcoalition.org/NMI-neoliberal-caravan . Greetings, Norbert co-convenor, JNC -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Nov 19 04:21:28 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:51:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: Dear Guru, ​(You (Guru) said: ​ > WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen the increasing > danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the > activities of transnational corporations. Apart from using/monetising our > data for their commercial gains in authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal > ways, their unregulated work also is structuring our participation in the > information society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also > understand how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on > extraordinary programme of global surveillance ​If such as strong generalization of big business is to be accepted as fair and valid, then all those who subscribe to such a generalization may have to go back to the WSIS declarations and summarily exclude Business as a Stakeholder group, and then declare that Internet Governance ought to be a process with two stakeholder groups - Government + Civil Society. No, no, on second thoughts I see your reference to Snowden and USG+, so the Civil Society could exclude Government from Internet Governance, and declare that Internet Governance must be reinvented as a single stakeholder group process, with Civil Society as the only stakeholder group. Seriously, i f WSIS had committed to build a " people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society ​", what happens to inclusiveness and development with such a position on Big Business? ​ And, why this hatred for big business? Most progress in this world has happened because of enterprise, much more because of business than because of Government. Granted, some of the information technology big businesses have worked with Governments on surveillance designs, and even there, we do not know how of much of such cooperation came out of a desire for profit and how much of it was forced by arm-twisting or by milder pressures in so many subtle and imaginative ways. Irrespective of how WEF's role has been articulated at the moment, it is a very positive development to bring in the WEF . ​ WEF participation suddenly expands business participation to a world of business outside the IT sector, so WEF's attention to IG issues might by itself act as a balancing influence within the corporate world, because many of these Big Businesses are Internet "users" themselves. ​Some of these Big Businesses are possibly charitable in unknown ways. What is needed here is strong support at the moment, and w e could ​eventually ​ work towards a greater balance across stakeholder groups.​ ​ Sivasubramanian M On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Guru wrote: > Dear Mawaki > > I would like to cite from two sources: > > A. WSIS Declaration of Principles - > http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html (the very first > two clauses) > > 1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world*, *assembled in > Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on > the Information Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to build > a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, > where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and > knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their > full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving > their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the > Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the > Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > 2. Our challenge* is to harness the potential of information and > communication technology to promote the development goals of the Millennium > Declaration, namely the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; > achievement of universal primary education; promotion of gender equality > and empowerment of women; reduction of child mortality; improvement of > maternal health; to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring > environmental sustainability; and development of global partnerships for > development for the attainment of a more peaceful, just and prosperous > world. We also reiterate our commitment to the achievement of sustainable > development and agreed development goals, as contained in the Johannesburg > Declaration and Plan of Implementation and the Monterrey Consensus, and > other outcomes of relevant United Nations Summits. > > I now will cite from the WEF site - http://www.weforum.org/our-members > > Begin > Our Members > The World Economic Forum is a membership organization. Our Members > comprise 1,000 of the world’s top corporations, global enterprises usually > with more than US$ 5 billion in turnover. These enterprises rank among the > top companies within their industry and play a leading role in shaping the > future of their industry and region. Some of our Member companies join the > Forum’s Strategic and Industry Partnership communities, which are designed > to deepen their engagement with the Forum’s events, project and > initiatives. The Forum’s Members are at the heart of all our activities. > End > > It is clear that WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen > the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles > from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from > using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in > authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated work > also is structuring our participation in the information society in many > unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are in > cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global > surveillance, which helps them in their goals of political-economic > domination / colonisation > > Participating in forums anchored in such a space will only legitimise > their power. I am clear that IGC should not participate in the NMI. > > thanks and regards > Guru > > Gurumurthy Kasinathan > Director, IT for Change > In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC > www.ITforChange.Net| Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890 > http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum > > > On Tuesday 18 November 2014 05:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't repeat > > the background details. In the middle of the night last night, before > > hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing catch-up with > > deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI > > Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, they are > > willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the NMI > > Coordination Council. > > > > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership of CSCG > > member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI process or > > not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations we've been > > having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and with the > > membership of our respective organizations.) After this we should be > > able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position about > > our participation in the NMI process. > > > > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be brief. > > State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement and, if > > you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you if you > > could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph (as we > > just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see what I > > mean.) > > > > Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. > > > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 19 04:35:34 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 15:05:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <149c7681318.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Even within civil society, include only those sections of civil society that still use jargon like neoliberal I suppose it is a mercy that 'evil capitalist running dogs' is out of fashion these days. On November 19, 2014 2:52:03 PM Sivasubramanian M wrote: > Dear Guru, > > ​(You (Guru) said: ​ > > WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen the increasing > > danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the > > activities of transnational corporations. Apart from using/monetising our > > data for their commercial gains in > authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal > > ways, their unregulated work also is structuring our participation in the > > information society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also > > understand how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on > > extraordinary programme of global surveillance > > > ​If such as strong generalization of big business is to be accepted as fair > and valid, then all those who subscribe to such a generalization may have > to go back to the WSIS declarations and summarily exclude Business as a > Stakeholder group, and then declare that Internet Governance ought to be a > process with two stakeholder groups - Government + Civil Society. No, no, > on second thoughts I see your reference to Snowden and USG+, so the Civil > Society could exclude Government from Internet Governance, and declare that > Internet Governance must be reinvented as a single stakeholder group > process, with Civil Society as the only stakeholder group. > > Seriously, i > f WSIS had committed to build a " > people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society > ​", what happens to inclusiveness and development with such a position on > Big Business? ​ > > > And, why this hatred for big business? Most progress in this world has > happened because of enterprise, much more because of business than because > of Government. Granted, some of the information technology big businesses > have worked with Governments on surveillance designs, and even there, we do > not know how of much of such cooperation came out of a desire for profit > and how much of it was forced by arm-twisting or by milder pressures in so > many subtle and imaginative ways. > > Irrespective of how WEF's role has been articulated at the moment, it is a > very positive development to bring in the WEF > . > ​ > WEF participation suddenly expands business participation to a world of > business outside the IT sector, so WEF's attention to IG issues might by > itself act as a balancing influence within the corporate world, because > many of these Big Businesses are Internet "users" themselves. > ​Some of these Big Businesses are possibly charitable in unknown ways. What > is needed here is strong support at the moment, and w > e could > ​eventually ​ > work towards a greater balance across stakeholder groups.​ > ​ > > Sivasubramanian M > > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Guru wrote: > > > Dear Mawaki > > > > I would like to cite from two sources: > > > > A. WSIS Declaration of Principles - > > http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html (the very first > > two clauses) > > > > 1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world*, *assembled in > > Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on > > the Information Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to build > > a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, > > where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and > > knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their > > full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving > > their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the > > Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the > > Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > > 2. Our challenge* is to harness the potential of information and > > communication technology to promote the development goals of the Millennium > > Declaration, namely the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; > > achievement of universal primary education; promotion of gender equality > > and empowerment of women; reduction of child mortality; improvement of > > maternal health; to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring > > environmental sustainability; and development of global partnerships for > > development for the attainment of a more peaceful, just and prosperous > > world. We also reiterate our commitment to the achievement of sustainable > > development and agreed development goals, as contained in the Johannesburg > > Declaration and Plan of Implementation and the Monterrey Consensus, and > > other outcomes of relevant United Nations Summits. > > > > I now will cite from the WEF site - http://www.weforum.org/our-members > > > > Begin > > Our Members > > The World Economic Forum is a membership organization. Our Members > > comprise 1,000 of the world’s top corporations, global enterprises usually > > with more than US$ 5 billion in turnover. These enterprises rank among the > > top companies within their industry and play a leading role in shaping the > > future of their industry and region. Some of our Member companies join the > > Forum’s Strategic and Industry Partnership communities, which are designed > > to deepen their engagement with the Forum’s events, project and > > initiatives. The Forum’s Members are at the heart of all our activities. > > End > > > > It is clear that WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen > > the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles > > from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from > > using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in > > authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated work > > also is structuring our participation in the information society in many > > unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are in > > cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global > > surveillance, which helps them in their goals of political-economic > > domination / colonisation > > > > Participating in forums anchored in such a space will only legitimise > > their power. I am clear that IGC should not participate in the NMI. > > > > thanks and regards > > Guru > > > > Gurumurthy Kasinathan > > Director, IT for Change > > In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC > > www.ITforChange.Net| Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890 > > http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum > > > > > > On Tuesday 18 November 2014 05:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > Dear All, > > > > > > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't repeat > > > the background details. In the middle of the night last night, before > > > hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing catch-up with > > > deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI > > > Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, they are > > > willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the NMI > > > Coordination Council. > > > > > > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership of CSCG > > > member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI process or > > > not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations we've been > > > having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and with the > > > membership of our respective organizations.) After this we should be > > > able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position about > > > our participation in the NMI process. > > > > > > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be brief. > > > State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement and, if > > > you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you if you > > > could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph (as we > > > just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see what I > > > mean.) > > > > > > Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. > > > > > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Nov 19 04:56:39 2014 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:56:39 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <1486537673.7522.1416390999726.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f29> Dear Siva Do really know what "Big Business" is, what its representation and its interests in the "ICT world" are ? Maybe you are confusing it (Big Business) with the enterprises, corporations and entities that constitute the so-called private sector. Only the latter is referred to in WSIS documents and in particular the Declaration of principles. Therefore, IMHO Guru is right. He just omitted to add the "Big Five" to the "Five Eyes" ! Best   Jean-Louis Fullsack   > Message du 19/11/14 10:22 > De : "Sivasubramanian M" > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Guru" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative > > Dear Guru, > (You (Guru) said:   WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated work also is structuring our participation in the information society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global surveillance > If such as strong generalization of big business is to be accepted as fair and valid, then all those who subscribe to such a generalization may have to go back to the WSIS declarations and summarily exclude Business as a Stakeholder group, and then declare that Internet Governance ought to be a process with two stakeholder groups - Government + Civil Society.  No, no, on second thoughts I see your reference to Snowden and USG+, so the Civil Society could exclude Government from Internet Governance, and declare that Internet Governance must be reinvented as a single stakeholder group process, with Civil Society as the only stakeholder group.  > Seriously, i f WSIS had committed to build a " people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society ", what happens to inclusiveness and development with such a position on Big Business? > > And, why this hatred for big business? Most progress in this world has happened because of enterprise, much more because of business than because of Government.  Granted, some of the information technology big businesses have worked with Governments on surveillance designs, and even there, we do not know how of much of such cooperation came out of a desire for profit and how much of it was forced by arm-twisting or by milder pressures in so many subtle and imaginative ways.  > Irrespective of how WEF's role has been articulated at the moment, it is a very positive development to bring in the WEF .  WEF participation suddenly expands business participation to a world of business outside the IT sector, so WEF's attention to IG issues might by itself act as a balancing influence within the corporate world, because many of these Big Businesses are Internet "users" themselves.  Some of these Big Businesses are possibly charitable in unknown ways. What is needed here is strong support at the moment, and w e could eventually work towards a greater balance across stakeholder groups. Sivasubramanian M > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Guru wrote: > Dear Mawaki > > I would like to cite from two sources: > > A. WSIS Declaration of Principles -  http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html  (the very first two clauses) > > 1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world*, *assembled in Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > 2. Our challenge* is to harness the potential of information and communication technology to promote the development goals of the Millennium Declaration, namely the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; achievement of universal primary education; promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women; reduction of child mortality; improvement of maternal health; to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring environmental sustainability; and development of global partnerships for development for the attainment of a more peaceful, just and prosperous world. We also reiterate our commitment to the achievement of sustainable development and agreed development goals, as contained in the Johannesburg Declaration and Plan of Implementation and the Monterrey Consensus, and other outcomes of relevant United Nations Summits. > > I now will cite  from the WEF site - http://www.weforum.org/our-members > > Begin > Our Members > The World Economic Forum is a membership organization. Our Members comprise 1,000 of the world’s top corporations, global enterprises usually with more than US$ 5 billion in turnover.  These enterprises rank among the top companies within their industry and play a leading role in shaping the future of their industry and region. Some of our Member companies join the Forum’s Strategic and Industry Partnership communities, which are designed to deepen their engagement with the Forum’s events, project and initiatives.  The Forum’s Members are at the heart of all our activities. > End > > It is clear that WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated work also is structuring our participation in the information society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global surveillance, which helps them in their goals of political-economic domination / colonisation > > Participating in forums anchored in such a space will only legitimise their power.  I am clear that IGC should not participate in the NMI. > > thanks and regards > Guru > > Gurumurthy Kasinathan > Director, IT for Change > In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC > www.ITforChange.Net| Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890 > http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum > > On Tuesday 18 November 2014 05:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't repeat > > the background details. In the middle of the night last night, before > > hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing catch-up with > > deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI > > Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, they are > > willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the NMI > > Coordination Council. > > > > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership of CSCG > > member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI process or > > not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations we've been > > having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and with the > > membership of our respective organizations.) After this we should be > > able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position about > > our participation in the NMI process. > > > > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be brief. > > State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement and, if > > you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you if you > > could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph (as we > > just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see what I > > mean.) > > > > Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. > > > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Nov 19 07:48:03 2014 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:48:03 -0200 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642895@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Wolfgang¹ s position also has my support. 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 Sorry for any typos. From: Sivasubramanian M Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , Sivasubramanian M Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 at 11:59 To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , Kleinwächter, "Wolfgang\" \"Kleinwächter" Cc: Mawaki Chango Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative Fully agree with Wolfgang here Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:56 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Thanks Mawaki, > > As a former Co-Chair of the IGC, I support the involvement of our Caucus in > the NMI. I see this as an opportunity to contribute to IG processes towards > objectives which has been on the IGC Agenda since ist creation in June 2003: > Bridging the digital divide and a human rights based free, open and > unfragmented Internet with access for everybody. NMI is a good platform - > based on the Sao Paulo principles - to strengthen privacy and right to freedom > of expression. > > Wolfgang > > > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Mawaki Chango > Gesendet: Di 18.11.2014 12:32 > An: Internet Governance > Betreff: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in > NETmundial Initiative > > Dear All, > > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't repeat the > background details. In the middle of the night last night, before hitting > the bed after a long and drawn out day playing catch-up with deadlines, I > saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI Transitional Committee's > reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, they are willing to let the CSCG vet CS > candidates to be part of the NMI Coordination Council. > > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership of CSCG > member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI process or not. I > believe this is the last step in the consultations we've been having (with > NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and with the membership of our > respective organizations.) After this we should be able to give a definite > answer, formulate a definite position about our participation in the NMI > process. > > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be brief. State > your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement and, if you care to > provide us with such, I would be grateful to you if you could keep your > supporting argument in one short paragraph (as we just want to take the > "temperature of the room" if you see what I mean.) > > Thank you for your understanding. > Best regards. > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Wed Nov 19 10:35:12 2014 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 05:35:12 -1000 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <1486537673.7522.1416390999726.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f29> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <1486537673.7522.1416390999726.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f29> Message-ID: My view would be for us to participate in NMI. We have nothing to loose, not even credibility. More often than not, we have participated in forums where big money and governments are also represented. Like the IGF for example, and the one time NetMundial. Civil Society also participates in ICANN through NCSG and At-large, ... and many more initiatives that escape my mind. If we don't participate in NMI, they will just go ahead without us, and achieve their agenda and goals without the checks and balances that Civil Society brings. Remember, nature abhors a vacuum. ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya L: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lordmwesh B: http://lord.me.ke/ T: 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 18 November 2014 23:56, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > Dear Siva > > > Do really know what "Big Business" is, what its representation and its > interests in the "ICT world" are ? Maybe you are confusing it (Big Business) > with the enterprises, corporations and entities that constitute the > so-called private sector. Only the latter is referred to in WSIS documents > and in particular the Declaration of principles. Therefore, IMHO Guru is > right. He just omitted to add the "Big Five" to the "Five Eyes" ! > > Best > > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > >> Message du 19/11/14 10:22 >> De : "Sivasubramanian M" >> A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , >> "Guru" >> Copie à : >> Objet : Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS >> participation in NETmundial Initiative >> >> > Dear Guru, > >> >> >> (You (Guru) said: >> WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen the increasing >> danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the >> activities of transnational corporations. Apart from using/monetising our >> data for their commercial gains in >> authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated work >> also is structuring our participation in the information society in many >> unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are in >> cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global >> surveillance > > >> > If such as strong generalization of big business is to be accepted as fair > and valid, then all those who subscribe to such a generalization may have to > go back to the WSIS declarations and summarily exclude Business as a > Stakeholder group, and then declare that Internet Governance ought to be a > process with two stakeholder groups - Government + Civil Society. No, no, > on second thoughts I see your reference to Snowden and USG+, so the Civil > Society could exclude Government from Internet Governance, and declare that > Internet Governance must be reinvented as a single stakeholder group > process, with Civil Society as the only stakeholder group. > >> > Seriously, i > f WSIS had committed to build a " > people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society > ", what happens to inclusiveness and development with such a position on Big > Business? > >> > >> > And, why this hatred for big business? Most progress in this world has > happened because of enterprise, much more because of business than because > of Government. Granted, some of the information technology big businesses > have worked with Governments on surveillance designs, and even there, we do > not know how of much of such cooperation came out of a desire for profit and > how much of it was forced by arm-twisting or by milder pressures in so many > subtle and imaginative ways. > >> > Irrespective of how WEF's role has been articulated at the moment, it is a > very positive development to bring in the WEF > . > WEF participation suddenly expands business participation to a world of > business outside the IT sector, so WEF's attention to IG issues might by > itself act as a balancing influence within the corporate world, because many > of these Big Businesses are Internet "users" themselves. > Some of these Big Businesses are possibly charitable in unknown ways. What > is needed here is strong support at the moment, and w > e could > eventually > work towards a greater balance across stakeholder groups. > > Sivasubramanian M > >> > >> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Guru wrote: >> >> >> Dear Mawaki >> > >> > I would like to cite from two sources: >> > >> > A. WSIS Declaration of Principles - >> > http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html (the very first two >> > clauses) >> > >> > 1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world*, *assembled in >> > Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on >> > the Information Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to build >> > a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, >> > where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and >> > knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their >> > full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving >> > their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the >> > Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the >> > Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >> > 2. Our challenge* is to harness the potential of information and >> > communication technology to promote the development goals of the Millennium >> > Declaration, namely the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; >> > achievement of universal primary education; promotion of gender equality and >> > empowerment of women; reduction of child mortality; improvement of maternal >> > health; to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring >> > environmental sustainability; and development of global partnerships for >> > development for the attainment of a more peaceful, just and prosperous >> > world. We also reiterate our commitment to the achievement of sustainable >> > development and agreed development goals, as contained in the Johannesburg >> > Declaration and Plan of Implementation and the Monterrey Consensus, and >> > other outcomes of relevant United Nations Summits. >> > >> > I now will cite from the WEF site - http://www.weforum.org/our-members >> > >> > Begin >> > Our Members >> > The World Economic Forum is a membership organization. Our Members >> > comprise 1,000 of the world's top corporations, global enterprises usually >> > with more than US$ 5 billion in turnover. These enterprises rank among the >> > top companies within their industry and play a leading role in shaping the >> > future of their industry and region. Some of our Member companies join the >> > Forum's Strategic and Industry Partnership communities, which are designed >> > to deepen their engagement with the Forum's events, project and initiatives. >> > The Forum's Members are at the heart of all our activities. >> > End >> > >> > It is clear that WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have >> > seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of >> > Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from >> > using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in >> > authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated work >> > also is structuring our participation in the information society in many >> > unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are in >> > cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global >> > surveillance, which helps them in their goals of political-economic >> > domination / colonisation >> > >> > Participating in forums anchored in such a space will only legitimise >> > their power. I am clear that IGC should not participate in the NMI. >> > >> > thanks and regards >> > Guru >> > >> > Gurumurthy Kasinathan >> > Director, IT for Change >> > In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC >> > www.ITforChange.Net| Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890 >> > http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum >> >> > >> > On Tuesday 18 November 2014 05:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> > > Dear All, >> > > >> > > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't repeat >> > > the background details. In the middle of the night last night, before >> > > hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing catch-up with >> > > deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI >> > > Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, they are >> > > willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the NMI >> > > Coordination Council. >> > > >> > > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership of CSCG >> > > member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI process or >> > > not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations we've been >> > > having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and with the >> > > membership of our respective organizations.) After this we should be >> > > able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position about >> > > our participation in the NMI process. >> > > >> > > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be brief. >> > > State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement and, if >> > > you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you if you >> > > could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph (as we >> > > just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see what I >> > > mean.) >> > > >> > > Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. >> > > >> > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 19 11:12:14 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 16:12:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for candidates to IGC co-coordinatorship In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mwendwa, I got excited for two reasons: 1) that there was a reply to this thread, and 2) seeing your name and thinking there we have a good candidate! Oh well, I guess I'll have to be a little more patient on this one. Thanks for your nice words anyway. Mawaki On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Mwendwa Kivuva wrote: > Thanks Mawaki, you did an excellent job at the IGC with much energy > and dedication. As we have seen before, the work of the coordinator is > not an easy one. > > We salute you > > On 18/11/2014, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > Now that the excitement of the new MAG is over it's time for us at the > IGC > > to have our own election. We need to elect a second Co-coordinator. The > > results of the elections for new Co-coordinators a year ago gave Mawaki a > > one year term. As he already suggested at several occasions including > > during the election last year, he is not in position to serve two more > > years. In other words, Mawaki does not intend to stand again. > > > > We invite members of the IGC to nominate candidates (please check with > them > > first about their willingness to serve), or to nominate themselves as a > > co-coordinator to serve from 2015-2017. > > > > Nominations will be open until 19th December, midnight UTC. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Mawaki Chango > > Deirdre Williams > > IGC Co-coordinators > > > > > -- > ______________________ > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Wed Nov 19 11:40:56 2014 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 06:40:56 -1000 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for candidates to IGC co-coordinatorship In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Mawaki, Though it would be a great experience being an IGC coordinator, I'm not ready for the responsibility this time round. Maybe after a year. If I take it, I risk spreading myself too thin. Regards ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya L: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lordmwesh B: http://lord.me.ke/ T: 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 19 November 2014 06:12, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Mwendwa, I got excited for two reasons: 1) that there was a reply to this > thread, and 2) seeing your name and thinking there we have a good candidate! > Oh well, I guess I'll have to be a little more patient on this one. Thanks > for your nice words anyway. > > Mawaki > > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Mwendwa Kivuva > wrote: >> >> Thanks Mawaki, you did an excellent job at the IGC with much energy >> and dedication. As we have seen before, the work of the coordinator is >> not an easy one. >> >> We salute you >> >> On 18/11/2014, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> > Dear All, >> > >> > Now that the excitement of the new MAG is over it's time for us at the >> > IGC >> > to have our own election. We need to elect a second Co-coordinator. The >> > results of the elections for new Co-coordinators a year ago gave Mawaki >> > a >> > one year term. As he already suggested at several occasions including >> > during the election last year, he is not in position to serve two more >> > years. In other words, Mawaki does not intend to stand again. >> > >> > We invite members of the IGC to nominate candidates (please check with >> > them >> > first about their willingness to serve), or to nominate themselves as a >> > co-coordinator to serve from 2015-2017. >> > >> > Nominations will be open until 19th December, midnight UTC. >> > >> > Best regards, >> > >> > Mawaki Chango >> > Deirdre Williams >> > IGC Co-coordinators >> > >> >> >> -- >> ______________________ >> 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 f.massit at orange.fr Wed Nov 19 12:03:25 2014 From: f.massit at orange.fr (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?fran=E7oise?=) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 18:03:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <1486537673.7522.1416390999726.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f29> Message-ID: <4D5FE9B9-60E9-4AE4-BC19-5A72B08E78A6@orange.fr> RE to "nature abhors a vacuum" : Since its inception, WEF has been a vacuum-cleaner for civil society, developing countries and enlightened citizens - all just dust. What's the hell to ignore the history of high power games and to nourish self-proclaimed meritocracy ! No possible gain in that place. Best, Françoise Le 19 nov. 14 à 16:35, Mwendwa Kivuva a écrit : > My view would be for us to participate in NMI. We have nothing to > loose, not even credibility. More often than not, we have participated > in forums where big money and governments are also represented. Like > the IGF for example, and the one time NetMundial. Civil Society also > participates in ICANN through NCSG and At-large, ... and many more > initiatives that escape my mind. > > If we don't participate in NMI, they will just go ahead without us, > and achieve their agenda and goals without the checks and balances > that Civil Society brings. Remember, nature abhors a vacuum. > ______________________ > Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya > L: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lordmwesh > B: http://lord.me.ke/ > T: 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 18 November 2014 23:56, Jean-Louis FULLSACK > wrote: >> Dear Siva >> >> >> Do really know what "Big Business" is, what its representation and >> its >> interests in the "ICT world" are ? Maybe you are confusing it (Big >> Business) >> with the enterprises, corporations and entities that constitute the >> so-called private sector. Only the latter is referred to in WSIS >> documents >> and in particular the Declaration of principles. Therefore, IMHO >> Guru is >> right. He just omitted to add the "Big Five" to the "Five Eyes" ! >> >> Best >> >> >> >> Jean-Louis Fullsack >> >> >> >>> Message du 19/11/14 10:22 >>> De : "Sivasubramanian M" >>> A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , >>> "Guru" >>> Copie à : >>> Objet : Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS >>> participation in NETmundial Initiative >>> >>> >> Dear Guru, >> >>> >>> >>> (You (Guru) said: >>> WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen the >>> increasing >>> danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the >>> activities of transnational corporations. Apart from using/ >>> monetising our >>> data for their commercial gains in >>> authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their >>> unregulated work >>> also is structuring our participation in the information society >>> in many >>> unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of >>> them are in >>> cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global >>> surveillance >> >> >>> >> If such as strong generalization of big business is to be accepted >> as fair >> and valid, then all those who subscribe to such a generalization >> may have to >> go back to the WSIS declarations and summarily exclude Business as a >> Stakeholder group, and then declare that Internet Governance ought >> to be a >> process with two stakeholder groups - Government + Civil Society. >> No, no, >> on second thoughts I see your reference to Snowden and USG+, so the >> Civil >> Society could exclude Government from Internet Governance, and >> declare that >> Internet Governance must be reinvented as a single stakeholder group >> process, with Civil Society as the only stakeholder group. >> >>> >> Seriously, i >> f WSIS had committed to build a " >> people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information >> Society >> ", what happens to inclusiveness and development with such a >> position on Big >> Business? >> >>> >> >>> >> And, why this hatred for big business? Most progress in this world >> has >> happened because of enterprise, much more because of business than >> because >> of Government. Granted, some of the information technology big >> businesses >> have worked with Governments on surveillance designs, and even >> there, we do >> not know how of much of such cooperation came out of a desire for >> profit and >> how much of it was forced by arm-twisting or by milder pressures in >> so many >> subtle and imaginative ways. >> >>> >> Irrespective of how WEF's role has been articulated at the moment, >> it is a >> very positive development to bring in the WEF >> . >> WEF participation suddenly expands business participation to a >> world of >> business outside the IT sector, so WEF's attention to IG issues >> might by >> itself act as a balancing influence within the corporate world, >> because many >> of these Big Businesses are Internet "users" themselves. >> Some of these Big Businesses are possibly charitable in unknown >> ways. What >> is needed here is strong support at the moment, and w >> e could >> eventually >> work towards a greater balance across stakeholder groups. >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> >>> >> >>> >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Guru wrote: >>> >>> >>> Dear Mawaki >>>> >>>> I would like to cite from two sources: >>>> >>>> A. WSIS Declaration of Principles - >>>> http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html (the very >>>> first two >>>> clauses) >>>> >>>> 1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world*, >>>> *assembled in >>>> Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World >>>> Summit on >>>> the Information Society,* declare our common desire and >>>> commitment to build >>>> a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information >>>> Society, >>>> where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information >>>> and >>>> knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to >>>> achieve their >>>> full potential in promoting their sustainable development and >>>> improving >>>> their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of >>>> the >>>> Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding >>>> the >>>> Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>>> 2. Our challenge* is to harness the potential of information and >>>> communication technology to promote the development goals of the >>>> Millennium >>>> Declaration, namely the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; >>>> achievement of universal primary education; promotion of gender >>>> equality and >>>> empowerment of women; reduction of child mortality; improvement >>>> of maternal >>>> health; to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring >>>> environmental sustainability; and development of global >>>> partnerships for >>>> development for the attainment of a more peaceful, just and >>>> prosperous >>>> world. We also reiterate our commitment to the achievement of >>>> sustainable >>>> development and agreed development goals, as contained in the >>>> Johannesburg >>>> Declaration and Plan of Implementation and the Monterrey >>>> Consensus, and >>>> other outcomes of relevant United Nations Summits. >>>> >>>> I now will cite from the WEF site - http://www.weforum.org/our-members >>>> >>>> Begin >>>> Our Members >>>> The World Economic Forum is a membership organization. Our Members >>>> comprise 1,000 of the world's top corporations, global >>>> enterprises usually >>>> with more than US$ 5 billion in turnover. These enterprises rank >>>> among the >>>> top companies within their industry and play a leading role in >>>> shaping the >>>> future of their industry and region. Some of our Member companies >>>> join the >>>> Forum's Strategic and Industry Partnership communities, which are >>>> designed >>>> to deepen their engagement with the Forum's events, project and >>>> initiatives. >>>> The Forum's Members are at the heart of all our activities. >>>> End >>>> >>>> It is clear that WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We >>>> have >>>> seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of >>>> Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. >>>> Apart from >>>> using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in >>>> authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their >>>> unregulated work >>>> also is structuring our participation in the information society >>>> in many >>>> unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of >>>> them are in >>>> cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global >>>> surveillance, which helps them in their goals of political-economic >>>> domination / colonisation >>>> >>>> Participating in forums anchored in such a space will only >>>> legitimise >>>> their power. I am clear that IGC should not participate in the >>>> NMI. >>>> >>>> thanks and regards >>>> Guru >>>> >>>> Gurumurthy Kasinathan >>>> Director, IT for Change >>>> In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC >>>> www.ITforChange.Net| Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, >>>> 26536890 >>>> http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum >>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday 18 November 2014 05:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't >>>>> repeat >>>>> the background details. In the middle of the night last night, >>>>> before >>>>> hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing catch-up >>>>> with >>>>> deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI >>>>> Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, they >>>>> are >>>>> willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the NMI >>>>> Coordination Council. >>>>> >>>>> Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership of >>>>> CSCG >>>>> member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI process >>>>> or >>>>> not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations we've >>>>> been >>>>> having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and >>>>> with the >>>>> membership of our respective organizations.) After this we >>>>> should be >>>>> able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position >>>>> about >>>>> our participation in the NMI process. >>>>> >>>>> So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be brief. >>>>> State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement and, >>>>> if >>>>> you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you if >>>>> you >>>>> could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph (as we >>>>> just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see what I >>>>> mean.) >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. >>>>> >>>>> 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 >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jfcallo at ciencitec.com Wed Nov 19 12:13:32 2014 From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 17:13:32 +0000 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for candidates to IGC co-coordinatorship In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20141119171332.Horde.-ida3e_MOQXkL8blFMumEw1@www.ciencitec.com> English Mrs. And Gentlemen I come voluntarily to support these activities, I regret to say that for more than a year Chapter of ISOC-Perú ago, has no activity, despite having reported to Ted Mooney on the discrimination of the current management, has not done anything , I call upon the International Community of ISOC, to do something for Lima, Perú. Thank you Joseph F. Callo Romero Founder of ISOC-Perú Español Sras. y Señores Me presento voluntariamente para apoyar estas actividades, lamento decir que desde hace mas de un año el Capitulo de ISOC-Peru, no tiene actividad alguna, a pesar de haber denunciado a Ted Mooney, sobre la discriminación del actual directivo, no se ha hecho nada, hago un llamado a la Comunidad Internacional de ISOC, para que haga algo por Lima, Perú. Gracias José F. Callo Romero Fundador de ISOC-Perú Mwendwa Kivuva escribió: > Thanks Mawaki, > > Though it would be a great experience being an IGC coordinator, I'm > not ready for the responsibility this time round. Maybe after a year. > If I take it, I risk spreading myself too thin. > > Regards > ______________________ > Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya > L: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lordmwesh > B: http://lord.me.ke/ > T: 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 19 November 2014 06:12, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> Mwendwa, I got excited for two reasons: 1) that there was a reply to this >> thread, and 2) seeing your name and thinking there we have a good candidate! >> Oh well, I guess I'll have to be a little more patient on this one. Thanks >> for your nice words anyway. >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Mwendwa Kivuva >> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Mawaki, you did an excellent job at the IGC with much energy >>> and dedication. As we have seen before, the work of the coordinator is >>> not an easy one. >>> >>> We salute you >>> >>> On 18/11/2014, Mawaki Chango wrote: >>> > Dear All, >>> > >>> > Now that the excitement of the new MAG is over it's time for us at the >>> > IGC >>> > to have our own election. We need to elect a second Co-coordinator. The >>> > results of the elections for new Co-coordinators a year ago gave Mawaki >>> > a >>> > one year term. As he already suggested at several occasions including >>> > during the election last year, he is not in position to serve two more >>> > years. In other words, Mawaki does not intend to stand again. >>> > >>> > We invite members of the IGC to nominate candidates (please check with >>> > them >>> > first about their willingness to serve), or to nominate themselves as a >>> > co-coordinator to serve from 2015-2017. >>> > >>> > Nominations will be open until 19th December, midnight UTC. >>> > >>> > Best regards, >>> > >>> > Mawaki Chango >>> > Deirdre Williams >>> > IGC Co-coordinators >>> > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ______________________ >>> 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 bzs at world.std.com Wed Nov 19 12:52:00 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 12:52:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE In-Reply-To: <20141119100531.0d6e36f7@swan.bollow.ch> References: <96408CD9A453499FB72972C951A44766@Toshiba> <546AD542.20702@itforchange.net> <7CD37A0771344819B39A327EA5AEBFC4@Toshiba> <20141119100531.0d6e36f7@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <21612.55488.142166.630828@world.std.com> In computing "NMI" means "Non-Maskable Interrupt", which is a condition -- often a serious error such as a hardware malfunction -- during a computation which cannot be suppressed or delayed. Just amused. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-maskable_interrupt -- -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 anja at internetdemocracy.in Wed Nov 19 14:59:24 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 01:29:24 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: Dear all, A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed some light on why their government has decided to support this initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't help but wonder whether I'm missing something here. For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given themselves some fixed seats. I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that they would not have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is something that a representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am not so certain) I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it forward. Thanks and best, Anja On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil > Society members here. > > My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to table > our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be withdrawn if XYZ > is not met. > > I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I dont > think we should miss out. > > NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate. > From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very > interested in the NMI. > > I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to > participate but we cannot ask others not to. > > Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at > the same time, saying that it is important for African S to participate. > > All for now > > Nnenna > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global > Journal wrote: > >> Jeremy, >> >> Thanks for your email. >> >> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do >> not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to >> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real politics. >> >> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect and >> impact. >> >> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or >> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of >> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks >> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a >> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends with >> deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics behind >> all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my >> life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of that >> smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie" >> when you need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple >> line. No, let's stay on what is at stake such as >> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US >> refused to discuss mass surveillance? >> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing and >> growing? >> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, >> insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of >> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao Paulo, >> then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass surveillance has >> nothing to do with IG they told us. >> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU >> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that >> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links they >> assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for CS. >> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important >> than IANA for example? >> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it comes >> to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying the >> political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help ourselves to >> have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are >> currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their innovative >> abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They also create more >> "values". >> >> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless, CS >> should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the weakness >> that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame JNC or anyone >> else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today. >> >> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a >> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist their >> arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it not that >> bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go directly after >> the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when launching an open, honest, >> transparent debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their >> committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is critical. "Please >> energize me! should we all cry. We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. >> >> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate >> and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and >> corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we live >> in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow citizens, >> we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do not need any >> WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the realities that are >> taking away our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of >> wasting our time and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of >> the WEF. >> >> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. JNC >> is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and more >> people. We should not care about that. We should care about having a >> collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the current >> mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes >> to convene and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has often >> been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When >> it comes to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply >> doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, they >> would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other >> few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It could work, >> but then it would lead to some social disaster, a disruption that would >> unleash violence. >> >> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias >> is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no >> barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to >> avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales as >> long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics. >> >> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil society >> participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that we should >> pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have hidden agenda, >> and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the debate. That would be >> fair. >> >> JC >> >> >> >> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : >> >> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal >> wrote: >> >> >> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a >> personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on >> civil society colleagues" you are referring to, >> >> >> Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post about >> this at igfwatch.org, because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic for this >> list. >> >> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen to >> non JNC members: >> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread Internet >> Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew Fitzgerald >> about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB Initiative) >> >> >> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. >> >> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some quarters >> to create a "UN Security Council” >> >> >> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? >> >> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi >> Chehadé: ... >> >> >> None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative >> as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global [Internet] >> governance”. >> >> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC >> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to >> participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of >> the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what >> was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different >> participants. >> >> >> I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative >> (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial >> meeting. On this much we agree. >> >> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... >> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns seen >> in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN >> and CGIbr. >> >> >> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I >> certainly have ( >> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). >> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial >> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of other >> civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their endorsement of >> the Initiative. >> >> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was >> sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off list, >> two emails in support, as well as one against). >> >> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): >> >> >> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now because >> I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a flight a few >> hours later. But I write this brief response just because you suggested in >> most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not. Anyway, others can >> respond to the balance of your questions rather than me monopolising the >> conversation. >> >> -- >> 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 :: >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joly at punkcast.com Wed Nov 19 15:46:23 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 15:46:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?WEBCAST_TODAY=3A_The_United_Nations_and_th?= =?UTF-8?Q?e_Internet=E2=80=94What=E2=80=99s_Next_=E2=80=93_A_Recap_of_the?= =?UTF-8?Q?_ITU_Plenipotentiary?= Message-ID: This starts in a few minutes. The ITU Plenipot is the telecom policy equivalent of a marathon, a solid 3 weeks of intense wonking. We will hear today from some of the delegates about how it went. As a prelim read up Kathy Brown's Final Reflections on Plenipot 14 joly posted: " Today, Wednesday 19 November 2014 the Greater Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society (ISOC-DC) presents The United Nations and the Internet—What’s Next – A Recap of the #ITU Plenipotentiary . Every four years, the members of the UN’s International" [image: isoc dc plenipot debrief] Today,* Wednesday 19 November 2014* the *Greater Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society * (ISOC-DC) presents *The United Nations and the Internet—What’s Next – A Recap of the #ITU Plenipotentiary *. Every four years, the members of the UN’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU) hold a Plenipotentiary conference to set goals, determine the ITU’s budget, and elect officers. This three-week meeting, held in Busan, Korea, ended in early November and attracted more attention than usual because of several proposals to give governments more control over the operations of Internet (e.g. routing, IP address allocation, and Internet domain names). Many fear these could enable censorship, violate privacy and limit innovation. Other, less controversial initiatives discussed in Busan would support the growth of broadband in developing countries, make the ITU more inclusive and transparent, and provide better information on how to make networks more secure and robust. This audience participation event will voice many different perspectives on the ITU and its role in shaping the future of the Internet. Discussion Leaders: *Fiona Alexander*, Associate Administrator for International Affairs, NTIA; *Leslie Martinkovics*, Director of International Public Policy and Regulatory Affairs, Verizon; *Carolina Rossini*, Vice President, International Policy and Strategy, Public Knowledge; Moderator;* Sally Wentworth*, Vice President of Global Public Policy Development, The Internet Society. The event will be webcast live on the *Internet Society Livestream * channel. *What: The United Nations and the Internet—What’s Next – A Recap of the #ITU Plenipotentiary Where: Microsoft Innovation & Policy Center, Washington DC When: Wednesday 19 November 2014 4pm-5:30pm EST | 21:00-22:30 UTC Webcast: https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/PP14Debrief Twitter: @isocdc + #plenipot * Comment See all comments *Permalink*: http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7227 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Nov 19 15:56:31 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 12:56:31 -0800 Subject: [governance] Seven big U.S. companies paid CEOs more than they pain in tax in 2013: study Message-ID: <20c101d0043b$4c6bf730$e543e590$@gmail.com> http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/18/us-usa-tax-ceopay-idUSKCN0J20CJ201 41118 These are the big biz folks who will now be multistakeholderizing through their agent the WEF at the NMI. Anyone want to bet how long before they take up the issues surrounding the use of the Internet for tax avoidance and come up with a suitably "multi-stakeholder" i.e. corporate friendly solution. 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 Wed Nov 19 16:10:15 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 15:10:15 -0600 Subject: [governance] Seven big U.S. companies paid CEOs more than they pain in tax in 2013: study In-Reply-To: <20c101d0043b$4c6bf730$e543e590$@gmail.com> References: <20c101d0043b$4c6bf730$e543e590$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 2:56 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/18/us-usa-tax-ceopay-idUSKCN0J20CJ201 > 41118 > Do you not understand that the system of representative democracy gave us the current regime of tax avoidance being legal? > > These are the big biz folks who will now be multistakeholderizing through > their agent the WEF at the NMI. > > Anyone want to bet how long before they take up the issues surrounding the > use of the Internet for tax avoidance and come up with a suitably > "multi-stakeholder" i.e. corporate friendly solution. > Don't demonise the Internet. The current system of dodging taxes though offshore shell companies means they don't need to do it via the Internet. > > M > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Nov 19 16:22:27 2014 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 22:22:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] Seven big U.S. companies paid CEOs more than they pain in tax in 2013: study In-Reply-To: References: <20c101d0043b$4c6bf730$e543e590$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Democracy being the mother of all Corps sins! You are scarring us all McTim Greedy corps looking for more dividends is the first reason, and they pay their fiscal advisor to go get these dirty money (avoidance of tax) The absence of transnational fiscal regulation and convergence is responsible #2 Such statement is part of what legitimize the abuse of power by the power. Who's the simple citizen from any country able to pay for a legal firm or fiscal advisor to avoid tax? McTim, you are ready to join Kadirov and Putin during their next dinner. This type of comment is what one can hear during such meeting. Congratulations! JC (At least we know you are no democrat) Le 19 nov. 2014 à 22:10, McTim a écrit : > > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 2:56 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/18/us-usa-tax-ceopay-idUSKCN0J20CJ201 > 41118 > > Do you not understand that the system of representative democracy gave us the current regime of tax avoidance being legal? > > > > These are the big biz folks who will now be multistakeholderizing through > their agent the WEF at the NMI. > > Anyone want to bet how long before they take up the issues surrounding the > use of the Internet for tax avoidance and come up with a suitably > "multi-stakeholder" i.e. corporate friendly solution. > > > Don't demonise the Internet. The current system of dodging taxes though offshore shell companies means they don't need to do it via the Internet. > > > > M > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 19 16:24:36 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 13:24:36 -0800 Subject: [governance] Seven big U.S. companies paid CEOs more than they pain in tax in 2013: study In-Reply-To: References: <20c101d0043b$4c6bf730$e543e590$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <212401d0043f$424d3030$c6e79090$@gmail.com> Many, even most independent observers no longer consider the US a democracy but rather a form of representative plutocracy (an electoral system dominated/controlled by the rich). The WEF/NMI is an attempt to project this aberration to becoming the governance structure initially for the Internet but according to their own documents, ultimately for all global governance. M From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 1:10 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] Seven big U.S. companies paid CEOs more than they pain in tax in 2013: study On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 2:56 PM, michael gurstein wrote: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/18/us-usa-tax-ceopay-idUSKCN0J20CJ201 41118 Do you not understand that the system of representative democracy gave us the current regime of tax avoidance being legal? These are the big biz folks who will now be multistakeholderizing through their agent the WEF at the NMI. Anyone want to bet how long before they take up the issues surrounding the use of the Internet for tax avoidance and come up with a suitably "multi-stakeholder" i.e. corporate friendly solution. Don't demonise the Internet. The current system of dodging taxes though offshore shell companies means they don't need to do it via the Internet. M ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From admin at bango.org.bb Wed Nov 19 16:31:56 2014 From: admin at bango.org.bb (BANGO) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 17:31:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] Seven big U.S. companies paid CEOs more than they pain in tax in 2013: study In-Reply-To: <212401d0043f$424d3030$c6e79090$@gmail.com> References: <20c101d0043b$4c6bf730$e543e590$@gmail.com> <212401d0043f$424d3030$c6e79090$@gmail.com> Message-ID: USA = A Police State. ROK From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 5:25 PM To: 'McTim'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [governance] Seven big U.S. companies paid CEOs more than they pain in tax in 2013: study Many, even most independent observers no longer consider the US a democracy but rather a form of representative plutocracy (an electoral system dominated/controlled by the rich). The WEF/NMI is an attempt to project this aberration to becoming the governance structure initially for the Internet but according to their own documents, ultimately for all global governance. M From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 1:10 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] Seven big U.S. companies paid CEOs more than they pain in tax in 2013: study On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 2:56 PM, michael gurstein wrote: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/18/us-usa-tax-ceopay-idUSKCN0J20CJ201 41118 Do you not understand that the system of representative democracy gave us the current regime of tax avoidance being legal? These are the big biz folks who will now be multistakeholderizing through their agent the WEF at the NMI. Anyone want to bet how long before they take up the issues surrounding the use of the Internet for tax avoidance and come up with a suitably "multi-stakeholder" i.e. corporate friendly solution. Don't demonise the Internet. The current system of dodging taxes though offshore shell companies means they don't need to do it via the Internet. M ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 19 17:01:01 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 16:01:01 -0600 Subject: [governance] Seven big U.S. companies paid CEOs more than they pain in tax in 2013: study In-Reply-To: References: <20c101d0043b$4c6bf730$e543e590$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias < jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com> wrote: > Democracy being the mother of all Corps sins! > I never said anything like that. > You are scarring us all McTim > > Greedy corps looking for more dividends is the first reason, and they pay > their fiscal advisor to go get these dirty money (avoidance of tax) > The absence of transnational fiscal regulation and convergence is > responsible #2 > and representative democracy gave us both of the above. Just sayin' > > Such statement is part of what legitimize the abuse of power by the power. > Who's the simple citizen from any country able to pay for a legal firm or > fiscal advisor to avoid tax? > I never made any such statement. I am merely stating facts. MG was complaining about big corporations dodging taxes and trying to couple that with WEF/NMI. > > McTim, you are ready to join Kadirov and Putin during their next dinner. > This type of comment is what one can hear during such meeting. > I doubt that they state facts plainly and clearly without resorting to hyperbole, which is what I did. > > Congratulations! > JC > (At least we know you are no democrat) > I am both a small d democrat and a large D Democrat (I am actually from Minnesota and our Democratic party is called the Democratic Farmer Labor party). We do have a code of Conduct on this list, I would encourage you to read it before you are sanctioned. -- 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 > > > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Nov 20 00:50:21 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 14:50:21 +0900 Subject: [governance] Notes from World Internet Conference, "Wuzhen Summit" in China Message-ID: I am taking notes of the sessions I am attending - realtime ones using Google Doc. Now it is Day 2, afternoon, "Security and Cooperation in Cyberspace" https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vYdPeOrnWRuGbjbXStAeQHJ3BcbQ0j_ARw20eqcnuj0/edit izumi -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk Thu Nov 20 00:56:35 2014 From: vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk (vincent solomon) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 05:56:35 +0000 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for candidates to IGC co-coordinatorship In-Reply-To: <20141119171332.Horde.-ida3e_MOQXkL8blFMumEw1@www.ciencitec.com> Message-ID: <1416462995.71905.YahooMailBasic@web172503.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> I would love this opportunity but weather i get the chance is another thing . “Limitations live only in our minds. But if we use our imaginations, our possibilities become limitless” NAME: VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA CONTACT: +256 773307045 / +256 713307045 / +256 753307045 EMAIL:aliama.vincent at cit.mak.ac.ug / vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk /vinsoloster at gmail.com Skype : vinsolo2 -------------------------------------------- On Wed, 19/11/14, jfcallo at ciencitec.com wrote: Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT: Call for candidates to IGC co-coordinatorship To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Mwendwa Kivuva" , "Mawaki Chango" Date: Wednesday, 19 November, 2014, 20:13 English Mrs. And Gentlemen I come voluntarily to support these activities, I regret to say that  for more than a year Chapter of ISOC-Perú ago, has no activity,  despite having reported to Ted Mooney on the discrimination of the  current management, has not done anything , I call upon the  International Community of ISOC, to do something for Lima, Perú. Thank you Joseph F. Callo Romero Founder of ISOC-Perú Español Sras. y Señores Me presento voluntariamente para apoyar estas actividades, lamento  decir que desde hace mas de un año el Capitulo de ISOC-Peru, no tiene  actividad alguna, a pesar de haber denunciado a Ted Mooney, sobre la  discriminación del actual directivo, no se ha hecho nada, hago un  llamado a la Comunidad Internacional de ISOC, para que haga algo por  Lima, Perú. Gracias José F. Callo Romero Fundador de ISOC-Perú Mwendwa Kivuva escribió: > Thanks Mawaki, > > Though it would be a great experience being an IGC coordinator, I'm > not ready for the responsibility this time round. Maybe after a year. > If I take it, I risk spreading myself too thin. > > Regards > ______________________ > Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya > L: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lordmwesh > B: http://lord.me.ke/ > T: 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 19 November 2014 06:12, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> Mwendwa, I got excited for two reasons: 1) that there was a reply to this >> thread, and 2) seeing your name and thinking there we have a good candidate! >> Oh well, I guess I'll have to be a little more patient on this one. Thanks >> for your nice words anyway. >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Mwendwa Kivuva >> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Mawaki, you did an excellent job at the IGC with much energy >>> and dedication. As we have seen before, the work of the coordinator is >>> not an easy one. >>> >>> We salute you >>> >>> On 18/11/2014, Mawaki Chango wrote: >>> > Dear All, >>> > >>> > Now that the excitement of the new MAG is over it's time for us at the >>> > IGC >>> > to have our own election. We need to elect a second Co-coordinator. The >>> > results of the elections for new Co-coordinators a year ago gave Mawaki >>> > a >>> > one year term. As he already suggested at several occasions including >>> > during the election last year, he is not in position to serve two more >>> > years. In other words, Mawaki does not intend to stand again. >>> > >>> > We invite members of the IGC to nominate candidates (please check with >>> > them >>> > first about their willingness to serve), or to nominate themselves as a >>> > co-coordinator to serve from 2015-2017. >>> > >>> > Nominations will be open until 19th December, midnight UTC. >>> > >>> > Best regards, >>> > >>> > Mawaki Chango >>> > Deirdre Williams >>> > IGC Co-coordinators >>> > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ______________________ >>> 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. >> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your 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 anriette at apc.org Thu Nov 20 02:17:43 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 09:17:43 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> Dear all I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on IG, so apologies for not participating. Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process a try. I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position. I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is legitimate and clear. I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and white'. My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August have actually been addressed. I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its mechanisms. But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental processes and mechanisms. I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the following: - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us - a limited timeframe - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we continue or not My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the process and whether it meets the criteria important to us. This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, and we can always withdraw. Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement, internet governance. Anriette On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear all, > > A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed > some light on why their government has decided to support this > initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? > I have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and > can't help but wonder whether I'm missing something here. > > For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour > of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though > as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations > who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the > wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the > Brazilian government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a > new power centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have > already given themselves some fixed seats. > > I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee > means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" > clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others > on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at > NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would > be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel > like the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to > rubberstamp things that would happen anyway - but because we okay > them, somehow the structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain > a legitimacy that they would not have had without. An unwise use of > our power, I would say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is > something that a representative from the WEF made clear enough to me > in an informal conversation in October. Some of the individual > initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the > structure as a whole, I am not so certain) > > I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring > the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by > Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're > thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it > forward. > > Thanks and best, > Anja > > > > > > On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma > wrote: > > Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African > Civil Society members here. > > My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to > table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be > withdrawn if XYZ is not met. > > I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in > Africa, I dont think we should miss out. > > NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to > participate. From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons > were already very interested in the NMI. > > I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT > to participate but we cannot ask others not to. > > Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. > And at the same time, saying that it is important for African S to > participate. > > All for now > > Nnenna > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The > Global Journal > wrote: > > Jeremy, > > Thanks for your email. > > Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as > we both do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would > simply be wise to terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even > though we are in real politics. > > Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better > effect and impact. > > What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers > or participants is that the initiative has more than a > troubling set of definitions, expectations and leading to an > overall confusion. It looks more or less like "un chèque en > blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a wealthy elite (the three > players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends with deeper > pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics > behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant > for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the > partition behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you > always call some troopers from the "génie" when you need a > screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple line. > No, let's stay on what is at stake such as > - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that > the US refused to discuss mass surveillance? > - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep > maturing and growing? > - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, > insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't > encryption part of the mass surveillance issue? So then why to > please the US, in Sao Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to > really go after it? Mass surveillance has nothing to do with > IG they told us. > - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against > the EU decision to protect personal data, considering rightly > in my view, that search engines are touching at personal data, > beyond the simple links they assembled in their result pages? > This is a real good debate for CS. > - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More > important than IANA for example? > - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas > when it comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the > ICANN is saying the political aspects of IG is beyond its > mandate? How can we help ourselves to have these ideas popping > out of CS minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are currently > ranking, I am positively impressed with their innovative > abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They also > create more "values". > > I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. > Nevertheless, CS should really act differently. The NMI story > is relevant of the weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, > and this is not to blame JNC or anyone else. A leadership > crisis wrote someone today. > > Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle > CS in a satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We > had to twist their arm every minute to get info, to get > principles, to simply get it not that bad. Why is it so > difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go directly after the > right ideas, proposals and suggestions when launching an open, > honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep creating > distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory > boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we > all cry. We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. > > So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have > a debate and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, > citizens and corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the > growing asymmetry we live in since the mid-nineties? In the > face of History, and our fellow citizens, we are failing, > because CS is not united. To do that you do not need any WEF. > You only need to trust, share, and confront the realities that > are taking away our rights. This is what should be done, now, > instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about > the comfortable sofas of the WEF. > > Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own > mandate. JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and > reaching more and more people. We should not care about that. > We should care about having a collective action that would > oblige governments, corps and the current mandarins to take > more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes to > convene and consult many participants is certainly nice. This > has often been done, long before we began to put in our mouth > the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on > the public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders > had to go through MS to make decision, they would have simply > gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other few > guys technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It > could work, but then it would lead to some social disaster, a > disruption that would unleash violence. > > JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, > our bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no > corporation, no barons. We are simple citizens, with a > profound democratic concern (to avoid another asymmetric > wars), and we are ready to go into rationales as long as we > are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics. > > There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as > civil society participants if we do not go after unity. And we > all agree that we should pay more respect to each others, as > long as we do not have hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes > putting their money in the debate. That would be fair. > > JC > > > > Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : > >> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The >> Global Journal > > wrote: >>> >>> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first >>> email. On a personal note, I would appreciate you to >>> elaborate about the "dumping on civil society colleagues" >>> you are referring to, >> >> Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog >> post about this at igfwatch.org , >> because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic for this list. >> >>> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I >>> do listen to non JNC members: >>> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to >>> spread Internet Governance more evenly across the developing >>> world". (Ask Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that >>> understanding of what is the WIB Initiative) >> >> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. >> >>> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from >>> some quarters to create a "UN Security Council” >> >> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? >> >>> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, >>> ... Fadi Chehadé: ... >> >> None of these statements support the characterisation of the >> Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for >> global [Internet] governance”. >> >>> Based on these official and public statement, I can only >>> read JNC statement as an interesting analysis and agree with >>> JNC reluctance to participate or endorse such following-up >>> (hijacking might be to blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor >>> the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what was stated >>> ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different >>> participants. >> >> I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial >> Initiative (particularly the naming thereof) to be a >> hijacking of the NETmundial meeting. On this much we agree. >> >>> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that >>> convoy ... should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges >>> the serious concerns seen in the making of, and in the >>> diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. >> >> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part >> personally I certainly have >> (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). >> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the >> NETmundial Initiative, but that it has to do this by >> impugning the motives of other civil society groups and >> falsely attributing them with their endorsement of the >> Initiative. >> >> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant >> which was sent in a personal capacity (though I have >> subsequently received, off list, two emails in support, as >> well as one against). >> >>> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the >>> BestBits list): >> >> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right >> now because I am speaking at a conference today and will be >> boarding a flight a few hours later. But I write this brief >> response just because you suggested in most recent mail that >> I was ignoring you - I’m not. Anyway, others can respond to >> the balance of your questions rather than me monopolising the >> conversation. >> >> -- >> 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 :: >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- ````````````````````````````````` anriette esterhuysen executive director association for progressive communications po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa anriette at apc.org www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nnenna75 at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 03:04:41 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 08:04:41 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> Message-ID: +1000 Nnenna On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our members > about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with project meetings, > evaluations, planning, and also the African School on IG, so apologies for > not participating. > > Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have also > asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there are > concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process a try. > > I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, and > I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position. I also > feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is legitimate and > clear. > > I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how Ian > had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and white'. > > My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we expressed > at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August have > actually been addressed. > > I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more > transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its > mechanisms. > > But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we > should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at > national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to many > but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive democratic > multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through closer > connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental processes and > mechanisms. > > I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. > > My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the > following: > > - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us > - a limited timeframe > - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we > continue or not > > > My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it closely > to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to get together > prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our particpation has had > impact, whether we have been able to influence the process and whether it > meets the criteria important to us. > > This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns out > not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, and we can > always withdraw. > > Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive, > to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive > processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I think that > backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial > would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement, > internet governance. > > Anriette > > > On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Dear all, > > A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed > some light on why their government has decided to support this initiative, > and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I have had great > respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't help but wonder > whether I'm missing something here. > > For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour > of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though as > earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations who want > to participate to continue doing so and report back to the wider > community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian > government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power > centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given > themselves some fixed seats. > > I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee > means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" clearly > are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others on this list > too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at NYU to give > feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would be developed > under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like the only thing > we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp things that would > happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the structure and the > initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that they would not have > had without. An unwise use of our power, I would say (that they would go > ahead without us anyway is something that a representative from the WEF > made clear enough to me in an informal conversation in October. Some of the > individual initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the > structure as a whole, I am not so certain) > > I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring > the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by Amelia > and others. I would love to hear more about what they're thinking, and how > we could operationalize this ourselves and take it forward. > > Thanks and best, > Anja > > > > > > On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > >> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil >> Society members here. >> >> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to table >> our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be withdrawn if XYZ >> is not met. >> >> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I >> dont think we should miss out. >> >> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate. >> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very >> interested in the NMI. >> >> I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to >> participate but we cannot ask others not to. >> >> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at >> the same time, saying that it is important for African S to participate. >> >> All for now >> >> Nnenna >> >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >> Journal wrote: >> >>> Jeremy, >>> >>> Thanks for your email. >>> >>> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both >>> do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to >>> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real politics. >>> >>> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect >>> and impact. >>> >>> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or >>> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of >>> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks >>> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a >>> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends with >>> deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics behind >>> all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my >>> life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of that >>> smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie" >>> when you need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple >>> line. No, let's stay on what is at stake such as >>> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US >>> refused to discuss mass surveillance? >>> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing and >>> growing? >>> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, >>> insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of >>> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao Paulo, >>> then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass surveillance has >>> nothing to do with IG they told us. >>> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU >>> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that >>> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links they >>> assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for CS. >>> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important >>> than IANA for example? >>> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it >>> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying the >>> political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help ourselves to >>> have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are >>> currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their innovative >>> abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They also create more >>> "values". >>> >>> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless, >>> CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the weakness >>> that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame JNC or anyone >>> else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today. >>> >>> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a >>> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist their >>> arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it not that >>> bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go directly after >>> the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when launching an open, honest, >>> transparent debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their >>> committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is critical. "Please >>> energize me! should we all cry. We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. >>> >>> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate >>> and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and >>> corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we live >>> in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow citizens, >>> we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do not need any >>> WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the realities that are >>> taking away our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of >>> wasting our time and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of >>> the WEF. >>> >>> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. >>> JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and more >>> people. We should not care about that. We should care about having a >>> collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the current >>> mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes >>> to convene and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has often >>> been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When >>> it comes to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply >>> doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, they >>> would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other >>> few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It could work, >>> but then it would lead to some social disaster, a disruption that would >>> unleash violence. >>> >>> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our >>> bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no >>> barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to >>> avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales as >>> long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics. >>> >>> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil >>> society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that we >>> should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have hidden >>> agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the debate. That >>> would be fair. >>> >>> JC >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : >>> >>> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >>> Journal wrote: >>> >>> >>> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a >>> personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on >>> civil society colleagues" you are referring to, >>> >>> >>> Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post about >>> this at igfwatch.org, because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic for this >>> list. >>> >>> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen >>> to non JNC members: >>> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread Internet >>> Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew Fitzgerald >>> about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB Initiative) >>> >>> >>> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. >>> >>> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some >>> quarters to create a "UN Security Council” >>> >>> >>> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? >>> >>> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi >>> Chehadé: ... >>> >>> >>> None of these statements support the characterisation of the >>> Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global >>> [Internet] governance”. >>> >>> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC >>> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to >>> participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of >>> the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what >>> was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different >>> participants. >>> >>> >>> I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative >>> (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial >>> meeting. On this much we agree. >>> >>> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... >>> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns seen >>> in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN >>> and CGIbr. >>> >>> >>> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I >>> certainly have ( >>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). >>> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial >>> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of other >>> civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their endorsement of >>> the Initiative. >>> >>> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which >>> was sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off >>> list, two emails in support, as well as one against). >>> >>> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): >>> >>> >>> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now >>> because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a flight a >>> few hours later. But I write this brief response just because you >>> suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not. Anyway, >>> others can respond to the balance of your questions rather than me >>> monopolising the conversation. >>> >>> -- >>> 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 :: >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -- > ````````````````````````````````` > anriette esterhuysen > executive director > association for progressive communications > po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 03:38:13 2014 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 09:38:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] Seven big U.S. companies paid CEOs more than they pain in tax in 2013: study In-Reply-To: References: <20c101d0043b$4c6bf730$e543e590$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <206124A0-C186-43D4-A04B-67FE2267DAB5@gmail.com> McTim, Sorry for I do not have much time to lose with your assumptions turned into facts. In particular with someone maintaining that Democracy is responsible for the Corporations' behavior regarding their tax duties. This is insane and a dangerous thinking. I will always fight such non sense. And if the code of conduct of any list comes to the conclusion that this is unacceptable attitude I am happy to leave. Probably I might be joined in my departure by anyone using the terminology "dick" against any other participant. After all, these lists belongs to what we should understand as part of the agora (see that public square at the bottom of the Acropolis). In our European culture, freedom of expression has some limitation (holocaust, nazism...) and I am most happy with it. In the US, even in beautiful Minnesota, things seem to be rather different where anything can be said whatever it is. So even though this is just "agora talk", I feel that denouncing Democracy, moreover its representative model, on no evidence is part of the legitimizing process to outplay democracy. And if I do understand well, Democracy seems to be a danger to the open and unified Internet where the last thing people want is some public policy regulations. I suggest you reflect on the name of your grouping, with all due respect to cornfields and farmers. Also to provide us with some serious sources and backgrounds (links) about these facts you believe are real. JC I do not mind to face any code of conduct of any list. And to be clear I put my democratic standards at a much higher rank of respect. I would also be amused to Le 19 nov. 2014 à 23:01, McTim a écrit : > > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: > Democracy being the mother of all Corps sins! > > I never said anything like that. > > > You are scarring us all McTim > > Greedy corps looking for more dividends is the first reason, and they pay their fiscal advisor to go get these dirty money (avoidance of tax) > The absence of transnational fiscal regulation and convergence is responsible #2 > > and representative democracy gave us both of the above. Just sayin' > > > > Such statement is part of what legitimize the abuse of power by the power. Who's the simple citizen from any country able to pay for a legal firm or fiscal advisor to avoid tax? > > > I never made any such statement. I am merely stating facts. MG was complaining about big corporations dodging taxes and trying to couple that with WEF/NMI. > > > > McTim, you are ready to join Kadirov and Putin during their next dinner. This type of comment is what one can hear during such meeting. > > > I doubt that they state facts plainly and clearly without resorting to hyperbole, which is what I did. > > > > Congratulations! > JC > (At least we know you are no democrat) > > > I am both a small d democrat and a large D Democrat (I am actually from Minnesota and our Democratic party is called the Democratic Farmer Labor party). > > We do have a code of Conduct on this list, I would encourage you to read it before you are sanctioned. > > -- > 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 > > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 20 03:48:19 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 14:18:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Seven big U.S. companies paid CEOs more than they pain in tax in 2013: study In-Reply-To: <206124A0-C186-43D4-A04B-67FE2267DAB5@gmail.com> References: <20c101d0043b$4c6bf730$e543e590$@gmail.com> <206124A0-C186-43D4-A04B-67FE2267DAB5@gmail.com> Message-ID: <149cc6334b0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> I am sorry but your so called standards I can see so far are not democracy. They are mere demagoguery, with perhaps a distaste for the usa thrown in for free. On November 20, 2014 2:08:34 PM Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: > McTim, > > Sorry for I do not have much time to lose with your assumptions turned into > facts. In particular with someone maintaining that Democracy is responsible > for the Corporations' behavior regarding their tax duties. This is insane > and a dangerous thinking. I will always fight such non sense. And if the > code of conduct of any list comes to the conclusion that this is > unacceptable attitude I am happy to leave. Probably I might be joined in my > departure by anyone using the terminology "dick" against any other participant. > > After all, these lists belongs to what we should understand as part of the > agora (see that public square at the bottom of the Acropolis). In our > European culture, freedom of expression has some limitation (holocaust, > nazism...) and I am most happy with it. In the US, even in beautiful > Minnesota, things seem to be rather different where anything can be said > whatever it is. So even though this is just "agora talk", I feel that > denouncing Democracy, moreover its representative model, on no evidence is > part of the legitimizing process to outplay democracy. And if I do > understand well, Democracy seems to be a danger to the open and unified > Internet where the last thing people want is some public policy regulations. > > I suggest you reflect on the name of your grouping, with all due respect to > cornfields and farmers. Also to provide us with some serious sources and > backgrounds (links) about these facts you believe are real. > > JC > > > > I do not mind to face any code of conduct of any list. And to be clear I > put my democratic standards at a much higher rank of respect. I would also > be amused to > Le 19 nov. 2014 à 23:01, McTim a écrit : > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias > wrote: > > Democracy being the mother of all Corps sins! > > > > I never said anything like that. > > > > > > You are scarring us all McTim > > > > Greedy corps looking for more dividends is the first reason, and they pay > their fiscal advisor to go get these dirty money (avoidance of tax) > > The absence of transnational fiscal regulation and convergence is > responsible #2 > > > > and representative democracy gave us both of the above. Just sayin' > > > > > > > > Such statement is part of what legitimize the abuse of power by the > power. Who's the simple citizen from any country able to pay for a legal > firm or fiscal advisor to avoid tax? > > > > > > I never made any such statement. I am merely stating facts. MG was > complaining about big corporations dodging taxes and trying to couple that > with WEF/NMI. > > > > > > > > McTim, you are ready to join Kadirov and Putin during their next dinner. > This type of comment is what one can hear during such meeting. > > > > > > I doubt that they state facts plainly and clearly without resorting to > hyperbole, which is what I did. > > > > > > > > Congratulations! > > JC > > (At least we know you are no democrat) > > > > > > I am both a small d democrat and a large D Democrat (I am actually from > Minnesota and our Democratic party is called the Democratic Farmer Labor > party). > > > > We do have a code of Conduct on this list, I would encourage you to read > it before you are sanctioned. > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > > > McTim > > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 03:50:46 2014 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 09:50:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] Seven big U.S. companies paid CEOs more than they pain in tax in 2013: study In-Reply-To: <149cc6334b0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <20c101d0043b$4c6bf730$e543e590$@gmail.com> <206124A0-C186-43D4-A04B-67FE2267DAB5@gmail.com> <149cc6334b0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Love you Suresh! ;-) Le 20 nov. 2014 à 09:48, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > I am sorry but your so called standards I can see so far are not democracy. They are mere demagoguery, with perhaps a distaste for the usa thrown in for free. > On November 20, 2014 2:08:34 PM Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: > >> McTim, >> >> Sorry for I do not have much time to lose with your assumptions turned into facts. In particular with someone maintaining that Democracy is responsible for the Corporations' behavior regarding their tax duties. This is insane and a dangerous thinking. I will always fight such non sense. And if the code of conduct of any list comes to the conclusion that this is unacceptable attitude I am happy to leave. Probably I might be joined in my departure by anyone using the terminology "dick" against any other participant. >> >> After all, these lists belongs to what we should understand as part of the agora (see that public square at the bottom of the Acropolis). In our European culture, freedom of expression has some limitation (holocaust, nazism...) and I am most happy with it. In the US, even in beautiful Minnesota, things seem to be rather different where anything can be said whatever it is. So even though this is just "agora talk", I feel that denouncing Democracy, moreover its representative model, on no evidence is part of the legitimizing process to outplay democracy. And if I do understand well, Democracy seems to be a danger to the open and unified Internet where the last thing people want is some public policy regulations. >> >> I suggest you reflect on the name of your grouping, with all due respect to cornfields and farmers. Also to provide us with some serious sources and backgrounds (links) about these facts you believe are real. >> >> JC >> >> >> >> I do not mind to face any code of conduct of any list. And to be clear I put my democratic standards at a much higher rank of respect. I would also be amused to >> Le 19 nov. 2014 à 23:01, McTim a écrit : >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: >>> Democracy being the mother of all Corps sins! >>> >>> I never said anything like that. >>> >>> >>> You are scarring us all McTim >>> >>> Greedy corps looking for more dividends is the first reason, and they pay their fiscal advisor to go get these dirty money (avoidance of tax) >>> The absence of transnational fiscal regulation and convergence is responsible #2 >>> >>> and representative democracy gave us both of the above. Just sayin' >>> >>> >>> >>> Such statement is part of what legitimize the abuse of power by the power. Who's the simple citizen from any country able to pay for a legal firm or fiscal advisor to avoid tax? >>> >>> >>> I never made any such statement. I am merely stating facts. MG was complaining about big corporations dodging taxes and trying to couple that with WEF/NMI. >>> >>> >>> >>> McTim, you are ready to join Kadirov and Putin during their next dinner. This type of comment is what one can hear during such meeting. >>> >>> >>> I doubt that they state facts plainly and clearly without resorting to hyperbole, which is what I did. >>> >>> >>> >>> Congratulations! >>> JC >>> (At least we know you are no democrat) >>> >>> >>> I am both a small d democrat and a large D Democrat (I am actually from Minnesota and our Democratic party is called the Democratic Farmer Labor party). >>> >>> We do have a code of Conduct on this list, I would encourage you to read it before you are sanctioned. >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Cheers, >>> >>> McTim >>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 20 04:00:35 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 14:30:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] Seven big U.S. companies paid CEOs more than they pain in tax in 2013: study In-Reply-To: References: <20c101d0043b$4c6bf730$e543e590$@gmail.com> <206124A0-C186-43D4-A04B-67FE2267DAB5@gmail.com> <149cc6334b0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <149cc6e7780.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> The feeling is mutual, I am sure. On November 20, 2014 2:20:51 PM Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: > Love you Suresh! > ;-) > > Le 20 nov. 2014 à 09:48, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > > > I am sorry but your so called standards I can see so far are not > democracy. They are mere demagoguery, with perhaps a distaste for the usa > thrown in for free. > > On November 20, 2014 2:08:34 PM Jean-Christophe Nothias > wrote: > > > >> McTim, > >> > >> Sorry for I do not have much time to lose with your assumptions turned > into facts. In particular with someone maintaining that Democracy is > responsible for the Corporations' behavior regarding their tax duties. This > is insane and a dangerous thinking. I will always fight such non sense. And > if the code of conduct of any list comes to the conclusion that this is > unacceptable attitude I am happy to leave. Probably I might be joined in my > departure by anyone using the terminology "dick" against any other participant. > >> > >> After all, these lists belongs to what we should understand as part of > the agora (see that public square at the bottom of the Acropolis). In our > European culture, freedom of expression has some limitation (holocaust, > nazism...) and I am most happy with it. In the US, even in beautiful > Minnesota, things seem to be rather different where anything can be said > whatever it is. So even though this is just "agora talk", I feel that > denouncing Democracy, moreover its representative model, on no evidence is > part of the legitimizing process to outplay democracy. And if I do > understand well, Democracy seems to be a danger to the open and unified > Internet where the last thing people want is some public policy regulations. > >> > >> I suggest you reflect on the name of your grouping, with all due respect > to cornfields and farmers. Also to provide us with some serious sources and > backgrounds (links) about these facts you believe are real. > >> > >> JC > >> > >> > >> > >> I do not mind to face any code of conduct of any list. And to be clear I > put my democratic standards at a much higher rank of respect. I would also > be amused to > >> Le 19 nov. 2014 à 23:01, McTim a écrit : > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias > wrote: > >>> Democracy being the mother of all Corps sins! > >>> > >>> I never said anything like that. > >>> > >>> > >>> You are scarring us all McTim > >>> > >>> Greedy corps looking for more dividends is the first reason, and they > pay their fiscal advisor to go get these dirty money (avoidance of tax) > >>> The absence of transnational fiscal regulation and convergence is > responsible #2 > >>> > >>> and representative democracy gave us both of the above. Just sayin' > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Such statement is part of what legitimize the abuse of power by the > power. Who's the simple citizen from any country able to pay for a legal > firm or fiscal advisor to avoid tax? > >>> > >>> > >>> I never made any such statement. I am merely stating facts. MG was > complaining about big corporations dodging taxes and trying to couple that > with WEF/NMI. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> McTim, you are ready to join Kadirov and Putin during their next > dinner. This type of comment is what one can hear during such meeting. > >>> > >>> > >>> I doubt that they state facts plainly and clearly without resorting to > hyperbole, which is what I did. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Congratulations! > >>> JC > >>> (At least we know you are no democrat) > >>> > >>> > >>> I am both a small d democrat and a large D Democrat (I am actually from > Minnesota and our Democratic party is called the Democratic Farmer Labor > party). > >>> > >>> We do have a code of Conduct on this list, I would encourage you to > read it before you are sanctioned. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> McTim > >>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Thu Nov 20 04:38:58 2014 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 10:38:58 +0100 (CET) Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> Message-ID: <1136161679.7127.1416476339066.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k07> Dear Anriette I'm profoundly disappointed to see APC rallying the WEF controlled NMI process.   I thought that APC would have more regards for ethics in the IS (AL C-10 of the GAP !), and that it would be able to resist the gregarian instinct of other organisations and (very ) ambitious "CS" people. Coming from the "South" and particularly from Africa, this tropism towards business with all its anti-governmental/anti state beheaviour is truly shoccking. Tax evasion is a model of WEF "governance", just for giving one example, and this is depriving states and governments of thousends billion dollars revenue ! Especially in Africa. In your enthousiasm to join the WEF bandwagon, did you (and APC) forgot this fact ? APC is bringing WSIS-CS into disrepute. Where is our spirit and our commitment of Geneva, when CS was strong enough to resist the pressure from governments and issued its own Declaration?    Jean-Louis Fullsack       > Message du 20/11/14 08:16 > De : "Anriette Esterhuysen" > A : "Anja Kovacs" , "Nnenna Nwakanma" > Copie à : "Governance" , "Best Bits" > Objet : Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC > >Dear all > > I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on IG, so apologies for not participating. > > Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process a try. > > I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position.  I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is legitimate and clear. > > I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and white'. > > My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August have actually been addressed. > > I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its mechanisms. > > But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at national level, and through the IGF.  This might sound pretty naive to many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive  democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental processes and mechanisms. > > I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. > > My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the following: > > - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us > - a limited timeframe > - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we continue or not > > > My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the process and whether it meets the criteria important to us. > > This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns out not to be worthy of it.  But I think it is a risk worth taking, and we can always withdraw. > > Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out.  I think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement, internet governance. > > Anriette > > > On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear all, > A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed some light on why their government has decided to support this initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't help but wonder whether I'm missing something here. > For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given themselves some fixed seats. > I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that they would not have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is something that a representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am not so certain) > I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it forward. > Thanks and best, Anja > > > > > On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil Society members here. > > My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be withdrawn if XYZ is not met. > > I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I dont think we should miss out. > > NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate.  From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very interested in the NMI. > > I see it is okay if one network or list  or platform  decides NOT to participate but we cannot ask others not to. > > Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at the same time, saying that it is important for African S to participate. > > All for now > > Nnenna > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Jeremy, > > Thanks for your email. > Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real politics. > Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect and impact.  > What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at stake such as - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US refused to discuss mass surveillance? - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing and growing? - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic,  insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us. - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for CS. - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important than IANA for example?  - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They also create more "values". > I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless, CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today. > Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. > So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the realities that are taking away our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of the WEF. > Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and more people. We should not care about that. We should care about having a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the current mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes to convene and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead to some social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence. > JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics. > There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the debate. That would be fair. > JC >   > Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : > On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > > I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on civil society colleagues" you are referring to, > Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post about this at igfwatch.org, because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic for this list. > The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen to non JNC members: - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB Initiative) > Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. > - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some quarters to create a "UN Security Council” > A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? > - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi Chehadé: ... > None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global [Internet] governance”. > Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different participants. > I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial meeting. On this much we agree. > So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. > Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I certainly have (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles).  What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their endorsement of the Initiative. > Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off list, two emails in support, as well as one against). > By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): > I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a flight a few hours later.  But I write this brief response just because you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not.  Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions rather than me monopolising the conversation. > --  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 :: > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- ````````````````````````````````` anriette esterhuysen executive director association for progressive communications po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa anriette at apc.org www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lorena at collaboratory.de Thu Nov 20 04:43:07 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 10:43:07 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> Message-ID: +1 to Anriette and Wolfgang 2014-11-20 9:04 GMT+01:00 Nnenna Nwakanma : > +1000 > > Nnenna > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our members >> about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with project meetings, >> evaluations, planning, and also the African School on IG, so apologies for >> not participating. >> >> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have also >> asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there are >> concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process a try. >> >> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, and >> I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position. I also >> feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is legitimate and >> clear. >> >> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how >> Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and >> white'. >> >> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we expressed >> at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August have >> actually been addressed. >> >> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more >> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its >> mechanisms. >> >> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we >> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at >> national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to many >> but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive democratic >> multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through closer >> connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental processes and >> mechanisms. >> >> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. >> >> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the >> following: >> >> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us >> - a limited timeframe >> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we >> continue or not >> >> >> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it >> closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to get >> together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our particpation >> has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the process and >> whether it meets the criteria important to us. >> >> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns >> out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, and we >> can always withdraw. >> >> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive, >> to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive >> processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I think that >> backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial >> would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement, >> internet governance. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed >> some light on why their government has decided to support this initiative, >> and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I have had great >> respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't help but wonder >> whether I'm missing something here. >> >> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour >> of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though as >> earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations who want >> to participate to continue doing so and report back to the wider >> community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian >> government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power >> centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given >> themselves some fixed seats. >> >> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee >> means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" clearly >> are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others on this list >> too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at NYU to give >> feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would be developed >> under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like the only thing >> we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp things that would >> happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the structure and the >> initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that they would not have >> had without. An unwise use of our power, I would say (that they would go >> ahead without us anyway is something that a representative from the WEF >> made clear enough to me in an informal conversation in October. Some of the >> individual initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the >> structure as a whole, I am not so certain) >> >> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring >> the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by Amelia >> and others. I would love to hear more about what they're thinking, and how >> we could operationalize this ourselves and take it forward. >> >> Thanks and best, >> Anja >> >> >> >> >> >> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >> >>> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil >>> Society members here. >>> >>> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to >>> table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be withdrawn >>> if XYZ is not met. >>> >>> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I >>> dont think we should miss out. >>> >>> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate. >>> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very >>> interested in the NMI. >>> >>> I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to >>> participate but we cannot ask others not to. >>> >>> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at >>> the same time, saying that it is important for African S to participate. >>> >>> All for now >>> >>> Nnenna >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >>> Journal wrote: >>> >>>> Jeremy, >>>> >>>> Thanks for your email. >>>> >>>> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both >>>> do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to >>>> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real politics. >>>> >>>> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect >>>> and impact. >>>> >>>> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or >>>> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of >>>> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks >>>> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a >>>> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends with >>>> deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics behind >>>> all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my >>>> life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of that >>>> smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie" >>>> when you need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple >>>> line. No, let's stay on what is at stake such as >>>> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US >>>> refused to discuss mass surveillance? >>>> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing >>>> and growing? >>>> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, >>>> insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of >>>> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao Paulo, >>>> then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass surveillance has >>>> nothing to do with IG they told us. >>>> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU >>>> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that >>>> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links they >>>> assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for CS. >>>> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important >>>> than IANA for example? >>>> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it >>>> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying the >>>> political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help ourselves to >>>> have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are >>>> currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their innovative >>>> abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They also create more >>>> "values". >>>> >>>> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. >>>> Nevertheless, CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant >>>> of the weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame >>>> JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today. >>>> >>>> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a >>>> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist their >>>> arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it not that >>>> bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go directly after >>>> the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when launching an open, honest, >>>> transparent debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their >>>> committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is critical. "Please >>>> energize me! should we all cry. We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. >>>> >>>> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a >>>> debate and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and >>>> corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we live >>>> in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow citizens, >>>> we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do not need any >>>> WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the realities that are >>>> taking away our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of >>>> wasting our time and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of >>>> the WEF. >>>> >>>> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. >>>> JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and more >>>> people. We should not care about that. We should care about having a >>>> collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the current >>>> mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes >>>> to convene and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has often >>>> been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When >>>> it comes to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply >>>> doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, they >>>> would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other >>>> few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It could work, >>>> but then it would lead to some social disaster, a disruption that would >>>> unleash violence. >>>> >>>> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our >>>> bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no >>>> barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to >>>> avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales as >>>> long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics. >>>> >>>> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil >>>> society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that we >>>> should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have hidden >>>> agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the debate. That >>>> would be fair. >>>> >>>> JC >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : >>>> >>>> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >>>> Journal wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On >>>> a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on >>>> civil society colleagues" you are referring to, >>>> >>>> >>>> Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post >>>> about this at igfwatch.org, because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic >>>> for this list. >>>> >>>> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen >>>> to non JNC members: >>>> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread >>>> Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew >>>> Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB >>>> Initiative) >>>> >>>> >>>> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. >>>> >>>> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some >>>> quarters to create a "UN Security Council” >>>> >>>> >>>> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? >>>> >>>> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi >>>> Chehadé: ... >>>> >>>> >>>> None of these statements support the characterisation of the >>>> Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global >>>> [Internet] governance”. >>>> >>>> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC >>>> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to >>>> participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of >>>> the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of >>>> what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different >>>> participants. >>>> >>>> >>>> I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative >>>> (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial >>>> meeting. On this much we agree. >>>> >>>> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... >>>> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns seen >>>> in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN >>>> and CGIbr. >>>> >>>> >>>> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I >>>> certainly have ( >>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). >>>> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial >>>> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of other >>>> civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their endorsement of >>>> the Initiative. >>>> >>>> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which >>>> was sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off >>>> list, two emails in support, as well as one against). >>>> >>>> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): >>>> >>>> >>>> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now >>>> because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a flight a >>>> few hours later. But I write this brief response just because you >>>> suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not. Anyway, >>>> others can respond to the balance of your questions rather than me >>>> monopolising the conversation. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 :: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> -- >> ````````````````````````````````` >> anriette esterhuysen >> executive director >> association for progressive communications >> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí ∙ Coordinator, Global Internet Governance Arbeitsgruppe Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.intgovforum.de ∙ www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 20 05:13:02 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 02:13:02 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> Message-ID: <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI offers some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of social justice. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma Cc: Governance; Best Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC Dear all I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on IG, so apologies for not participating. Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process a try. I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position. I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is legitimate and clear. I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and white'. My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August have actually been addressed. I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its mechanisms. But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental processes and mechanisms. I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the following: - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us - a limited timeframe - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we continue or not My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the process and whether it meets the criteria important to us. This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, and we can always withdraw. Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement, internet governance. Anriette On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: Dear all, A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed some light on why their government has decided to support this initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't help but wonder whether I'm missing something here. For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given themselves some fixed seats. I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that they would not have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is something that a representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am not so certain) I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it forward. Thanks and best, Anja On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil Society members here. My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be withdrawn if XYZ is not met. I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I dont think we should miss out. NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate. From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very interested in the NMI. I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to participate but we cannot ask others not to. Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at the same time, saying that it is important for African S to participate. All for now Nnenna On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: Jeremy, Thanks for your email. Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real politics. Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect and impact. What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at stake such as - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US refused to discuss mass surveillance? - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing and growing? - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us. - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for CS. - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important than IANA for example? - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They also create more "values". I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless, CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today. Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the realities that are taking away our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of the WEF. Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and more people. We should not care about that. We should care about having a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the current mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes to convene and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead to some social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence. JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics. There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the debate. That would be fair. JC Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on civil society colleagues" you are referring to, Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post about this at igfwatch.org , because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic for this list. The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen to non JNC members: - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB Initiative) Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some quarters to create a "UN Security Council” A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi Chehadé: ... None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global [Internet] governance”. Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different participants. I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial meeting. On this much we agree. So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I certainly have (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their endorsement of the Initiative. Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off list, two emails in support, as well as one against). By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a flight a few hours later. But I write this brief response just because you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not. Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions rather than me monopolising the conversation. -- 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 :: ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- ````````````````````````````````` anriette esterhuysen executive director association for progressive communications po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa anriette at apc.org www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nnenna75 at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 05:26:05 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 10:26:05 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as abandoning the pursuit of social justice? If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson Mandela. And it is him who said: "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner." I will rest my case for now Nnenna On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI offers > some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, you > are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of social > justice. > > > > M > > > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Anriette Esterhuysen > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM > *To:* Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma > *Cc:* Governance; Best Bits > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in > NETmundial Initiative - RFC > > > > Dear all > > I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our members > about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with project meetings, > evaluations, planning, and also the African School on IG, so apologies for > not participating. > > Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have also > asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there are > concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process a try. > > I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, and > I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position. I also > feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is legitimate and > clear. > > I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how Ian > had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and white'. > > My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we expressed > at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August have > actually been addressed. > > I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more > transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its > mechanisms. > > But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we > should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at > national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to many > but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive democratic > multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through closer > connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental processes and > mechanisms. > > I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. > > My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the > following: > > - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us > - a limited timeframe > - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we > continue or not > > > My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it closely > to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to get together > prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our particpation has had > impact, whether we have been able to influence the process and whether it > meets the criteria important to us. > > This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns out > not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, and we can > always withdraw. > > Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive, > to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive > processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I think that > backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial > would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement, > internet governance. > > Anriette > > On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed > some light on why their government has decided to support this initiative, > and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I have had great > respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't help but wonder > whether I'm missing something here. > > > > For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour of > civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though as > earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations who want > to participate to continue doing so and report back to the wider > community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian > government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power > centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given > themselves some fixed seats. > > > > I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee means > seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" clearly are > already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others on this list > too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at NYU to give > feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would be developed > under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like the only thing > we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp things that would > happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the structure and the > initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that they would not have > had without. An unwise use of our power, I would say (that they would go > ahead without us anyway is something that a representative from the WEF > made clear enough to me in an informal conversation in October. Some of the > individual initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the > structure as a whole, I am not so certain) > > > > I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring the > constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by Amelia and > others. I would love to hear more about what they're thinking, and how we > could operationalize this ourselves and take it forward. > > > > Thanks and best, > > Anja > > > > > > > > > > > > On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > > Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil > Society members here. > > My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to table > our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be withdrawn if XYZ > is not met. > > I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I dont > think we should miss out. > > NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate. > From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very > interested in the NMI. > > I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to > participate but we cannot ask others not to. > > Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at > the same time, saying that it is important for African S to participate. > > All for now > > Nnenna > > > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global > Journal wrote: > > Jeremy, > > Thanks for your email. > > > > Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do > not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to > terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real politics. > > > > Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect and > impact. > > > > What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or > participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of > definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks > more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a > wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends with > deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics behind > all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my > life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of that > smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie" > when you need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple > line. No, let's stay on what is at stake such as > > - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US refused > to discuss mass surveillance? > > - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing and > growing? > > - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, > insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of > the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao Paulo, > then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass surveillance has > nothing to do with IG they told us. > > - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU > decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that > search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links they > assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for CS. > > - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important than > IANA for example? > > - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it comes > to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying the > political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help ourselves to > have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are > currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their innovative > abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They also create more > "values". > > > > I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless, CS > should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the weakness > that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame JNC or anyone > else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today. > > > > Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a > satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist their > arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it not that > bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go directly after > the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when launching an open, honest, > transparent debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their > committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is critical. "Please > energize me! should we all cry. We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. > > > > So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate and > launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and corporations > to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we live in since the > mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow citizens, we are > failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do not need any WEF. You > only need to trust, share, and confront the realities that are taking away > our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of wasting our time > and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of the WEF. > > > > Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. JNC > is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and more > people. We should not care about that. We should care about having a > collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the current > mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes > to convene and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has often > been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When > it comes to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply > doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, they > would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other > few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It could work, > but then it would lead to some social disaster, a disruption that would > unleash violence. > > > > JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias is > somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no barons. > We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to avoid > another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales as long as > we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics. > > > > There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil society > participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that we should > pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have hidden agenda, > and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the debate. That would be > fair. > > > > JC > > > > > > > > Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : > > > > On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal < > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote: > > > > I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a > personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on > civil society colleagues" you are referring to, > > > > Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post about > this at igfwatch.org, because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic for this > list. > > > > The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen to > non JNC members: > > - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread Internet > Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew Fitzgerald > about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB Initiative) > > > > Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. > > > > - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some quarters > to create a "UN Security Council” > > > > A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? > > > > - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi > Chehadé: ... > > > > None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative as > in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global [Internet] governance”. > > > > Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC > statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to > participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of > the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what was > stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different > participants. > > > > I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative > (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial > meeting. On this much we agree. > > > > So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... should > for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns seen in the > making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN and > CGIbr. > > > > Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I > certainly have ( > http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). > What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial > Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of other > civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their endorsement of > the Initiative. > > > > Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was > sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off list, > two emails in support, as well as one against). > > > > By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): > > > > I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now because I > am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a flight a few hours > later. But I write this brief response just because you suggested in most > recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not. Anyway, others can respond > to the balance of your questions rather than me monopolising the > conversation. > > > > -- > > 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 :: > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > > ````````````````````````````````` > > anriette esterhuysen > > executive director > > association for progressive communications > > po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa > > anriette at apc.org > > www.apc.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 05:30:09 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 04:30:09 -0600 Subject: [governance] Seven big U.S. companies paid CEOs more than they pain in tax in 2013: study In-Reply-To: <206124A0-C186-43D4-A04B-67FE2267DAB5@gmail.com> References: <20c101d0043b$4c6bf730$e543e590$@gmail.com> <206124A0-C186-43D4-A04B-67FE2267DAB5@gmail.com> Message-ID: You are correct, I just "assumed" that the USA and Europe are made up of representative democracies. It is not at all a fact. #insanity On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Jean-Christophe Nothias < jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com> wrote: > McTim, > > Sorry for I do not have much time to lose with your assumptions turned > into facts. In particular with someone maintaining that Democracy is > responsible for the Corporations' behavior regarding their tax duties. This > is insane and a dangerous thinking. I will always fight such non sense. And > if the code of conduct of any list comes to the conclusion that this is > unacceptable attitude I am happy to leave. Probably I might be joined in my > departure by anyone using the terminology "dick" against any other > participant. > > After all, these lists belongs to what we should understand as part of the > agora (see that public square at the bottom of the Acropolis). In our > European culture, freedom of expression has some limitation (holocaust, > nazism...) and I am most happy with it. In the US, even in beautiful > Minnesota, things seem to be rather different where anything can be said > whatever it is. So even though this is just "agora talk", I feel that > denouncing Democracy, moreover its representative model, on no evidence is > part of the legitimizing process to outplay democracy. And if I do > understand well, Democracy seems to be a danger to the open and unified > Internet where the last thing people want is some public policy regulations. > > I suggest you reflect on the name of your grouping, with all due respect > to cornfields and farmers. Also to provide us with some serious sources and > backgrounds (links) about these facts you believe are real. > > JC > > > > I do not mind to face any code of conduct of any list. And to be clear I > put my democratic standards at a much higher rank of respect. I would also > be amused to > Le 19 nov. 2014 à 23:01, McTim a écrit : > > > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias < > jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Democracy being the mother of all Corps sins! >> > > I never said anything like that. > > > >> You are scarring us all McTim >> >> Greedy corps looking for more dividends is the first reason, and they pay >> their fiscal advisor to go get these dirty money (avoidance of tax) >> The absence of transnational fiscal regulation and convergence is >> responsible #2 >> > > and representative democracy gave us both of the above. Just sayin' > > > >> >> Such statement is part of what legitimize the abuse of power by the >> power. Who's the simple citizen from any country able to pay for a legal >> firm or fiscal advisor to avoid tax? >> > > > I never made any such statement. I am merely stating facts. MG was > complaining about big corporations dodging taxes and trying to couple that > with WEF/NMI. > > > >> >> McTim, you are ready to join Kadirov and Putin during their next dinner. >> This type of comment is what one can hear during such meeting. >> > > > I doubt that they state facts plainly and clearly without resorting to > hyperbole, which is what I did. > > > >> >> Congratulations! >> JC >> (At least we know you are no democrat) >> > > > I am both a small d democrat and a large D Democrat (I am actually from > Minnesota and our Democratic party is called the Democratic Farmer Labor > party). > > We do have a code of Conduct on this list, I would encourage you to read > it before you are sanctioned. > > -- > 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 >> >> >> > > > -- > 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 > > > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Nov 20 05:41:15 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 11:41:15 +0100 Subject: AW: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <1136161679.7127.1416476339066.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k07> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428A5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Jean Louis: Where is our spirit and our commitment of Geneva, when CS was strong enough to resist the pressure from governments and issued its own Declaration?  Wolfgang: In Geneva we did not walk out (as it was proposed by some CS people in the stormy morning session). We stayed in the room and our presence and our own declaration had an impact. WGIG, Tunis, IGF would have been different if we would have walked out in Geneva! -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Nov 20 05:49:06 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 21:49:06 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks Nnenna. Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of opinion. Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others. It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was reciprocated. The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when someones personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that people stop expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It would be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And some voices have already been silenced on this issue. We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can agree to respect differences of opinion. Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building APC as “ an international network and non profit organisation that wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve our lives and create a more just world”. No, she is not abandoning the pursuit of social justice. Ian Peter From: Nnenna Nwakanma Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as abandoning the pursuit of social justice? If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson Mandela. And it is him who said: "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner." I will rest my case for now Nnenna On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein wrote: So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI offers some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of social justice. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma Cc: Governance; Best Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC Dear all I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on IG, so apologies for not participating. Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process a try. I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position. I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is legitimate and clear. I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and white'. My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August have actually been addressed. I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its mechanisms. But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental processes and mechanisms. I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the following: - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us - a limited timeframe - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we continue or not My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the process and whether it meets the criteria important to us. This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, and we can always withdraw. Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement, internet governance. Anriette On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: Dear all, A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed some light on why their government has decided to support this initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't help but wonder whether I'm missing something here. For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given themselves some fixed seats. I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that they would not have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is something that a representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am not so certain) I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it forward. Thanks and best, Anja On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil Society members here. My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be withdrawn if XYZ is not met. I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I dont think we should miss out. NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate. >From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very interested in the NMI. I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to participate but we cannot ask others not to. Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at the same time, saying that it is important for African S to participate. All for now Nnenna On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: Jeremy, Thanks for your email. Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real politics. Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect and impact. What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at stake such as - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US refused to discuss mass surveillance? - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing and growing? - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us. - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for CS. - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important than IANA for example? - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They also create more "values". I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless, CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today. Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the realities that are taking away our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of the WEF. Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and more people. We should not care about that. We should care about having a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the current mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes to convene and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead to some social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence. JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics. There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the debate. That would be fair. JC Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on civil society colleagues" you are referring to, Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post about this at igfwatch.org, because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic for this list. The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen to non JNC members: - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB Initiative) Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some quarters to create a "UN Security Council” A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi Chehadé: ... None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global [Internet] governance”. Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different participants. I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial meeting. On this much we agree. So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I certainly have (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their endorsement of the Initiative. Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off list, two emails in support, as well as one against). By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a flight a few hours later. But I write this brief response just because you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not. Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions rather than me monopolising the conversation. -- 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 :: ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in ____________________________________________________________You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- `````````````````````````````````anriette esterhuysenexecutive directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755, melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Thu Nov 20 05:50:58 2014 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 12:50:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] Seven big U.S. companies paid CEOs more than they pain in tax in 2013: study In-Reply-To: <206124A0-C186-43D4-A04B-67FE2267DAB5@gmail.com> References: <20c101d0043b$4c6bf730$e543e590$@gmail.com> <206124A0-C186-43D4-A04B-67FE2267DAB5@gmail.com> Message-ID: <546DC792.7020903@digsys.bg> On 20.11.14 10:38, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: > McTim, > > Sorry for I do not have much time to lose with your assumptions turned > into facts. In particular with someone maintaining that Democracy is > responsible for the Corporations' behavior regarding their tax duties. > This is insane and a dangerous thinking.[...] There are two things at play here. First is the wishful thinking, that democracy, especially representative democracy makes any change to the second. The second is the fact, observed over millennia that rich people get richer on the backs of the poorer people. (*) This only changes when lots of blood is shed in a "revolution", where the ratio between "rich people blood" and "poor people blood" being shed is very disproportionate. And never in the "right" direction. It is very understandable, that most "poor" people would prefer to keep their life, even if not democratically represented according to the theory or promises. (*) There is also the bonus theory that feudalism has never ever gone away. That would then explain much easier why all this tax reduction stuff happens, without involving democracy in the discussion at all. And no name calling :) Daniel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From analia.aspis at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 05:51:15 2014 From: analia.aspis at gmail.com (Analia Aspis) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 07:51:15 -0300 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for candidates to IGC co-coordinatorship In-Reply-To: <1416462995.71905.YahooMailBasic@web172503.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <20141119171332.Horde.-ida3e_MOQXkL8blFMumEw1@www.ciencitec.com> <1416462995.71905.YahooMailBasic@web172503.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I would like to volunteer. I am trying to raise IG debate among my country Argentina, as well as regionally. I have activily participate in remote hub coordinatios as well as organizing student research group. Kind regards, Analía Aspis On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 2:56 AM, vincent solomon wrote: > I would love this opportunity but weather i get the chance is another > thing . > > > “Limitations live only in our minds. But if we use our imaginations, our > possibilities become limitless” > > NAME: VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA > CONTACT: +256 773307045 / +256 713307045 / +256 753307045 > EMAIL:aliama.vincent at cit.mak.ac.ug / vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk / > vinsoloster at gmail.com > Skype : vinsolo2 > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------- > On Wed, 19/11/14, jfcallo at ciencitec.com wrote: > > Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT: Call for candidates to IGC > co-coordinatorship > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Mwendwa Kivuva" < > Kivuva at transworldafrica.com>, "Mawaki Chango" > Date: Wednesday, 19 November, 2014, 20:13 > > English > Mrs. And Gentlemen > I come > voluntarily to support these activities, I regret to say > that > for more than a year Chapter of > ISOC-Perú ago, has no activity, > despite > having reported to Ted Mooney on the discrimination of the > > current management, has not done anything , > I call upon the > International Community > of ISOC, to do something for Lima, Perú. > Thank you > Joseph F. Callo > Romero > Founder of ISOC-Perú > > Español > Sras. > y Señores > Me presento voluntariamente para > apoyar estas actividades, lamento > decir > que desde hace mas de un año el Capitulo de ISOC-Peru, no > tiene > actividad alguna, a pesar de haber > denunciado a Ted Mooney, sobre la > discriminación del actual directivo, no se ha > hecho nada, hago un > llamado a la > Comunidad Internacional de ISOC, para que haga algo por > > Lima, Perú. > Gracias > José F. Callo Romero > Fundador > de ISOC-Perú > > > Mwendwa Kivuva > escribió: > > > Thanks > Mawaki, > > > > Though it > would be a great experience being an IGC coordinator, > I'm > > not ready for the > responsibility this time round. Maybe after a year. > > If I take it, I risk spreading myself too > thin. > > > > Regards > > ______________________ > > Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya > > L: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lordmwesh > > B: http://lord.me.ke/ > > > T: 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 19 November 2014 06:12, Mawaki Chango > wrote: > >> Mwendwa, I got excited for > two reasons: 1) that there was a reply to this > >> thread, and 2) seeing your name and > thinking there we have a good candidate! > >> Oh well, I guess I'll have to be a > little more patient on this one. Thanks > >> for your nice words anyway. > >> > >> Mawaki > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:30 AM, > Mwendwa Kivuva > >> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks Mawaki, you did an > excellent job at the IGC with much energy > >>> and dedication. As we have seen > before, the work of the coordinator is > >>> not an easy one. > >>> > >>> We > salute you > >>> > >>> On 18/11/2014, Mawaki Chango > > wrote: > >>> > Dear All, > >>> > > >>> > > Now that the excitement of the new MAG is over it's > time for us at the > >>> > IGC > >>> > to have our own election. We > need to elect a second Co-coordinator. The > >>> > results of the elections for > new Co-coordinators a year ago gave Mawaki > >>> > a > >>> > one year term. As he already > suggested at several occasions including > >>> > during the election last > year, he is not in position to serve two more > >>> > years. In other words, Mawaki > does not intend to stand again. > >>> > > > >>> > We invite members of > the IGC to nominate candidates (please check with > >>> > them > >>> > first about their willingness > to serve), or to nominate themselves as a > >>> > co-coordinator to serve from > 2015-2017. > >>> > > >>> > Nominations will be open > until 19th December, midnight UTC. > >>> > > >>> > > Best regards, > >>> > > >>> > Mawaki Chango > >>> > Deirdre Williams > >>> > IGC Co-coordinators > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > ______________________ > >>> 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. > >> > >> > > > > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on > the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information > and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's > charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 06:23:47 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 03:23:47 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <23be01d004b4$741c71f0$5c5555d0$@gmail.com> Thanks Ian and I am very familiar with APC’s illustrious history. However, I fail to see how providing legitimation for the active participation (dare one say provision of a veto power) to the global 1% via their agent the WEF in the area of global (Internet) governance will make a useful contribution to “creating a more just world”. Perhaps you or someone else can explain this to me. M From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 2:49 AM To: Nnenna Nwakanma; michael gurstein Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen; Governance; Best Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC Thanks Nnenna. Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of opinion. Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others. It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was reciprocated. The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when someones personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that people stop expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It would be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And some voices have already been silenced on this issue. We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can agree to respect differences of opinion. Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building APC as “ an international network and non profit organisation that wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve our lives and create a more just world”. No, she is not abandoning the pursuit of social justice. Ian Peter From: Nnenna Nwakanma Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as abandoning the pursuit of social justice? If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson Mandela. And it is him who said: "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner." I will rest my case for now Nnenna On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein wrote: So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI offers some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of social justice. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma Cc: Governance; Best Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC Dear all I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on IG, so apologies for not participating. Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process a try. I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position. I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is legitimate and clear. I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and white'. My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August have actually been addressed. I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its mechanisms. But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental processes and mechanisms. I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the following: - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us - a limited timeframe - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we continue or not My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the process and whether it meets the criteria important to us. This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, and we can always withdraw. Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement, internet governance. Anriette On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: Dear all, A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed some light on why their government has decided to support this initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't help but wonder whether I'm missing something here. For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given themselves some fixed seats. I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that they would not have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is something that a representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am not so certain) I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it forward. Thanks and best, Anja On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil Society members here. My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be withdrawn if XYZ is not met. I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I dont think we should miss out. NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate. From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very interested in the NMI. I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to participate but we cannot ask others not to. Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at the same time, saying that it is important for African S to participate. All for now Nnenna On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: Jeremy, Thanks for your email. Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real politics. Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect and impact. What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at stake such as - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US refused to discuss mass surveillance? - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing and growing? - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us. - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for CS. - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important than IANA for example? - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They also create more "values". I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless, CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today. Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the realities that are taking away our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of the WEF. Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and more people. We should not care about that. We should care about having a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the current mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes to convene and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead to some social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence. JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics. There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the debate. That would be fair. JC Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on civil society colleagues" you are referring to, Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post about this at igfwatch.org , because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic for this list. The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen to non JNC members: - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB Initiative) Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some quarters to create a "UN Security Council” A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi Chehadé: ... None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global [Internet] governance”. Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different participants. I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial meeting. On this much we agree. So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I certainly have (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their endorsement of the Initiative. Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off list, two emails in support, as well as one against). By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a flight a few hours later. But I write this brief response just because you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not. Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions rather than me monopolising the conversation. -- 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 :: ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- ````````````````````````````````` anriette esterhuysen executive director association for progressive communications po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa anriette at apc.org www.apc.org _____ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 06:26:31 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 05:26:31 -0600 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: MG, Why on earth would you take that from APC's reasoning? Your twisting of other peoples words has really gotten out of hand. Please stop it. On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 4:13 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI offers > some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, you > are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of social > justice. > > > > M > > > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Anriette Esterhuysen > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM > *To:* Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma > *Cc:* Governance; Best Bits > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in > NETmundial Initiative - RFC > > > > Dear all > > I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our members > about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with project meetings, > evaluations, planning, and also the African School on IG, so apologies for > not participating. > > Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have also > asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there are > concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process a try. > > I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, and > I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position. I also > feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is legitimate and > clear. > > I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how Ian > had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and white'. > > My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we expressed > at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August have > actually been addressed. > > I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more > transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its > mechanisms. > > But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we > should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at > national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to many > but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive democratic > multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through closer > connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental processes and > mechanisms. > > I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. > > My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the > following: > > - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us > - a limited timeframe > - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we > continue or not > > > My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it closely > to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to get together > prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our particpation has had > impact, whether we have been able to influence the process and whether it > meets the criteria important to us. > > This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns out > not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, and we can > always withdraw. > > Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive, > to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive > processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I think that > backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial > would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement, > internet governance. > > Anriette > > On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed > some light on why their government has decided to support this initiative, > and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I have had great > respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't help but wonder > whether I'm missing something here. > > > > For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour of > civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though as > earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations who want > to participate to continue doing so and report back to the wider > community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian > government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power > centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given > themselves some fixed seats. > > > > I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee means > seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" clearly are > already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others on this list > too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at NYU to give > feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would be developed > under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like the only thing > we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp things that would > happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the structure and the > initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that they would not have > had without. An unwise use of our power, I would say (that they would go > ahead without us anyway is something that a representative from the WEF > made clear enough to me in an informal conversation in October. Some of the > individual initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the > structure as a whole, I am not so certain) > > > > I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring the > constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by Amelia and > others. I would love to hear more about what they're thinking, and how we > could operationalize this ourselves and take it forward. > > > > Thanks and best, > > Anja > > > > > > > > > > > > On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > > Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil > Society members here. > > My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to table > our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be withdrawn if XYZ > is not met. > > I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I dont > think we should miss out. > > NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate. > From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very > interested in the NMI. > > I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to > participate but we cannot ask others not to. > > Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at > the same time, saying that it is important for African S to participate. > > All for now > > Nnenna > > > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global > Journal wrote: > > Jeremy, > > Thanks for your email. > > > > Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do > not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to > terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real politics. > > > > Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect and > impact. > > > > What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or > participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of > definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks > more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a > wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends with > deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics behind > all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my > life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of that > smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie" > when you need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple > line. No, let's stay on what is at stake such as > > - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US refused > to discuss mass surveillance? > > - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing and > growing? > > - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, > insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of > the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao Paulo, > then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass surveillance has > nothing to do with IG they told us. > > - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU > decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that > search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links they > assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for CS. > > - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important than > IANA for example? > > - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it comes > to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying the > political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help ourselves to > have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are > currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their innovative > abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They also create more > "values". > > > > I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless, CS > should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the weakness > that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame JNC or anyone > else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today. > > > > Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a > satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist their > arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it not that > bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go directly after > the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when launching an open, honest, > transparent debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their > committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is critical. "Please > energize me! should we all cry. We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. > > > > So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate and > launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and corporations > to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we live in since the > mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow citizens, we are > failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do not need any WEF. You > only need to trust, share, and confront the realities that are taking away > our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of wasting our time > and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of the WEF. > > > > Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. JNC > is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and more > people. We should not care about that. We should care about having a > collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the current > mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes > to convene and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has often > been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When > it comes to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply > doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, they > would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other > few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It could work, > but then it would lead to some social disaster, a disruption that would > unleash violence. > > > > JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias is > somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no barons. > We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to avoid > another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales as long as > we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics. > > > > There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil society > participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that we should > pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have hidden agenda, > and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the debate. That would be > fair. > > > > JC > > > > > > > > Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : > > > > On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal < > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote: > > > > I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a > personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on > civil society colleagues" you are referring to, > > > > Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post about > this at igfwatch.org, because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic for this > list. > > > > The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen to > non JNC members: > > - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread Internet > Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew Fitzgerald > about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB Initiative) > > > > Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. > > > > - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some quarters > to create a "UN Security Council” > > > > A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? > > > > - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi > Chehadé: ... > > > > None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative as > in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global [Internet] governance”. > > > > Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC > statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to > participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of > the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what was > stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different > participants. > > > > I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative > (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial > meeting. On this much we agree. > > > > So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... should > for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns seen in the > making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN and > CGIbr. > > > > Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I > certainly have ( > http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). > What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial > Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of other > civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their endorsement of > the Initiative. > > > > Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was > sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off list, > two emails in support, as well as one against). > > > > By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): > > > > I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now because I > am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a flight a few hours > later. But I write this brief response just because you suggested in most > recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not. Anyway, others can respond > to the balance of your questions rather than me monopolising the > conversation. > > > > -- > > 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 :: > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > > ````````````````````````````````` > > anriette esterhuysen > > executive director > > association for progressive communications > > po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa > > anriette at apc.org > > www.apc.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 > > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Nov 20 06:43:35 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 12:43:35 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi all, I share Anja's skepticism but also Anriette's more principled stance on participating in new processes. We need to communicate with relevant actors in this field. Ultimately I think the pragmatic question is if we find a sufficient number of qualified and trustworthy candidates who are willing to contribute on our behalf in the NMI. Whether or not we have experienced people who want to participate is a valuable indicator in itself, don't you agree? (I don't buy the well-known argument that those who are willing to get involved do this for career purposes.) Jeanette On 20 November 2014 11:49:06 CET, Ian Peter wrote: >Thanks Nnenna. > >Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of >opinion. > >Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others. >It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was >reciprocated. > >The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when >someones personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that >people stop expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It would >be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And >some voices have already been silenced on this issue. > >We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can agree to >respect differences of opinion. > >Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building >APC as “ an international network and non profit organisation that >wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve >our lives and create a more just world”. No, she is not abandoning the >pursuit of social justice. > >Ian Peter > > > >From: Nnenna Nwakanma >Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM >To: michael gurstein >Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits >Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in >NETmundial Initiative - RFC > >Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me >the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is >not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as >abandoning the pursuit of social justice? > > >If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson >Mandela. And it is him who said: >"If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your >enemy. Then he becomes your partner." > > >I will rest my case for now > > >Nnenna > > >On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein >wrote: > >So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI offers >some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, >you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of >social justice. > > > > M > > > > > >From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette >Esterhuysen > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM > To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma > Cc: Governance; Best Bits >Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in >NETmundial Initiative - RFC > > > > Dear all > >I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our >members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with >project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on >IG, so apologies for not participating. > >Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have >also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while >there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the >process a try. > >I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, >and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position. >I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is >legitimate and clear. > >I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how >Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black >and white'. > >My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we >expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late >August have actually been addressed. > >I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more >transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and >its mechanisms. > >But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we >should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at >national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to >many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive >democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through >closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental >processes and mechanisms. > > I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. > >My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the >following: > > - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us > - a limited timeframe >- agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we >continue or not > > >My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it >closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to >get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our >particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the >process and whether it meets the criteria important to us. > >This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns >out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, and >we can always withdraw. > >Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most >progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights >inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I >think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the >NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and >implement, internet governance. > > Anriette > > > > On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Dear all, > > > >A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed >some light on why their government has decided to support this >initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I >have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't >help but wonder whether I'm missing something here. > > > >For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour >of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though >as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations >who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the >wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian >government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power >centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given >themselves some fixed seats. > > > >I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee >means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" >clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others >on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at >NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would >be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like >the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp >things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the >structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that >they would not have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would >say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is something that a >representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal >conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, such as >that map, might have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am >not so certain) > > > >I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring >the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by >Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're >thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it >forward. > > > > Thanks and best, > > Anja > > > > > > > > > > > > On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > >Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil >Society members here. > >My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to >table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be >withdrawn if XYZ is not met. > >I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I >dont think we should miss out. > >NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate. >From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very >interested in the NMI. > >I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to >participate but we cannot ask others not to. > >Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at >the same time, saying that it is important for African S to >participate. > > All for now > > Nnenna > > > >On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >Journal wrote: > > Jeremy, > > Thanks for your email. > > > >Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do >not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to >terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real >politics. > > > >Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect >and impact. > > > >What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or >participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of >definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks >more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a >wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends >with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious >tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant >for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the partition >behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some >troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a >street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at stake >such as > >- why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US >refused to discuss mass surveillance? > >- why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing >and growing? > >- why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, >insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of >the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao >Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass >surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us. > >- why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU >decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that >search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links >they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for >CS. > >- why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important >than IANA for example? > >- why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it >comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying >the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help >ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all >the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their >innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They >also create more "values". > > > >I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless, >CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the >weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame >JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today. > > > >Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a >satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist >their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it >not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go >directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when >launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep >creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory >boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. We >are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. > > > >So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate >and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and >corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we >live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow >citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do >not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the >realities that are taking away our rights. This is what should be done, >now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about the >comfortable sofas of the WEF. > > > >Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. >JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and >more people. We should not care about that. We should care about having >a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the >current mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism >when it comes to convene and consult many participants is certainly >nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put in our >mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on the >public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had to go >through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone nowhere. Only >a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical issues doesn't >equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead to some >social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence. > > > >JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias >is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no >barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to >avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales >as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics. > > > >There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil >society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that >we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have >hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the >debate. That would be fair. > > > > JC > > > > > > > > Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : > > > > > >On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >Journal wrote: > > > >I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a >personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping >on civil society colleagues" you are referring to, > > > >Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post about >this at igfwatch.org, because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic for this >list. > > > > > >The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen >to non JNC members: > >- Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread >Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew >Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB >Initiative) > > > > Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. > > > > > >- McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some >quarters to create a "UN Security Council” > > > > A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? > > > > > >- Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi >Chehadé: ... > > > >None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative >as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global [Internet] >governance”. > > > > > >Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC >statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to >participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) >of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of >what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by >different participants. > > > >I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative >(particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial >meeting. On this much we agree. > > > >So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... >should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns >seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the >WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. > > > >Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I >certainly have >(http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). >What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial >Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of >other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their >endorsement of the Initiative. > > > >Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was >sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off >list, two emails in support, as well as one against). > > > > > > By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): > > > >I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now >because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a >flight a few hours later. But I write this brief response just because >you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not. >Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions rather than >me monopolising the conversation. > > > > -- > > 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 :: > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________You >received this message as a subscriber on the list: >bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To unsubscribe or change your settings, >visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > >-- `````````````````````````````````anriette esterhuysenexecutive >directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755, >melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Nov 20 06:51:43 2014 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 12:51:43 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear Nnenna, Thanks for calling in Mandela. Though, one reflection. Mandela worked with his enemies for dozens of years from his cell in jail, then entered the government of De Klerk, joining a government of national coalition with his enemies. Wait, wait, this is not what happened. He stood up right in his boots, until the power had to admit, with no other choice, that they had to transfer power to him and the majority of the People behind him, in respect of a democratic principle. Mandela never compromised himself with what he was combatting. He never gave up on his principles. Even though he called for non violence after he came to power be non violent, he would have to admit that violence helped his compatriots to resist the state violence by the South African apartheid machinery. Turning off the electricity grid in part of South Africa was not a friendly project in the eyes of de Klerk. Coming back to civil society today, instead of jumping in any bed where some money is expected, some illusion is awaiting for being turned into deception, some vain legitimization of an odd process is given away, or some ridiculous recognition is granted ("now we are part of the WEF circles"), we, civil society should stay in jail until the power comes and states that yes let's discuss the needed shift. That is what did Mandela. He did not compromised by going too early where he had nothing to gain - anything like a ministerial portfolio or any such sweeties - or anything to lose -for example faith people put into him to change through political means the situation in that country. Mandela was not sponsored by a group of corporations right? So please let's take a little distance to what is happening right now. Look at what is on the table : one single government that has interest to enter more of its product in the US, one ICANN who is under siege, and the WEF that is looking for more sponsors. Unity is key Nnenna. The current owners of the Internet know that perfectly well and civil society is losing its ethics. Failing, again and again. When did Mandela tried to give it a shot at the Apartheid regime? (not meaning that the asymmetry equates apartheid, but it is a serious global concern). Yesterday I had the pleasure to meet and talk to Richard Sammans (WEF) at the GIP conference by Diplo. He was at the White House during in the mid-nineties when Al Gore and the Clinton administration decided that the Internet was a critical element of economic domination. Al Gore made his industrial fortune at the times. Ira Magaziner did the job to overtake the root management out of academics hands, with the help of a few insiders such as Vint Cerf and a few others, we all know about that. One casuality: Jon Postel, and one victory: total asymmetry since then on the Internet public policy level. Sammans is a very smart and brilliant product of these years, and it was really nice talking to him. His experience at the Green Fund is of great interest (among other things, how to secure investment in green economy, keeping royalties for property rights to funders). When I mentioned the idea of preferably funding the IGF, he was not rejecting the idea. He said they had been thinking about it. This is something civil society can start discussing with the WEF, even without bringing legitimacy to the high-jacking the NetMundial final paper - I am still waiting to see what are the concrete consequences of that paper, apart from what is going on with the WEF/ICANN/CGIbr. The latter initiative has nothing to do with an invitation to civil society to have a tribune at the next Davos to express their concern. I would find really impressive to have Assange or Snowden invited to Davos next year to engage the transnational business community about the risk that such US policy brings to the world in terms of threat to their own benefits. But this is not what the initiative is about. This initiative is a clear signal that ICANN is feeling the pressure, and I believe Fadi should have another strategy to engage with civil society than simply offering them to go to bed with WEF. It is about the hot potato that ICANN, since Rousseff UN speech, has to deal with on behalf of the US: how to cool down some head of states because their personal privacy was violated... So I cannot imagine that you are suggesting us to contribute to calm down any voice that is standing in front of what is not tolerable by going into that initiative. We agree here, I am convinced. What I also believe is that this initiative is taking our eyes away from other serious concerns. We at JNC do understand that the new authority created by Bob Kahn, DONA (for Digital Object Naming Authority) is a new critical object of Internet Public Policy - the next stage for the Internet to transform our societies. Interestingly enough this DONA was not created under a Californian/US law setting, like ICANN and IANA, or ISOC and IETF. Bob Khan told me that governments around the world simply told him that they would not use his system of naming objects if it was a US entity. This DONA is about the future Internet of Things: any thought from civil society on this? Therefore this DONA is now a Swiss Foundation, incorporated in January 2014. I can only but imagine that everyone in these lists is curious to learn more about how this foundation will function. I asked Bob Kahn about the similarity between the first IANA and this DONA. I keep his answer for my next Huffington Post. I invite you to reflect on what should we expect from such an initiative by ICANN, as did Anriette, or Anja who have had some very good questions. We at JNC analyzed that this exploration was leading nowhere, and a dangerous slop, but I do respect efforts by those trying to explore a possible positive way forward into that initiative. I still encourage civil society to look after alternative initiatives (getting together?) (calling for a slot at the next DAVOS, with full liberty of expression) and set their own agenda, instead of trying to accommodate other's. The IGF is still the best bet for civil society with all its flaws and difficulties. There might be some progress there, and victories for civil society, if united. We should be no one little dog. JC (sorry for cross postings) Le 20 nov. 2014 à 09:04, Nnenna Nwakanma a écrit : > +1000 > > Nnenna > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on IG, so apologies for not participating. > > Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process a try. > > I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position. I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is legitimate and clear. > > I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and white'. > > My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August have actually been addressed. > > I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its mechanisms. > > But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental processes and mechanisms. > > I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. > > My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the following: > > - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us > - a limited timeframe > - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we continue or not > > > My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the process and whether it meets the criteria important to us. > > This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, and we can always withdraw. > > Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement, internet governance. > > Anriette > > > On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed some light on why their government has decided to support this initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't help but wonder whether I'm missing something here. >> >> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given themselves some fixed seats. >> >> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that they would not have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is something that a representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am not so certain) >> >> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it forward. >> >> Thanks and best, >> Anja >> >> >> >> >> >> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil Society members here. >> >> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be withdrawn if XYZ is not met. >> >> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I dont think we should miss out. >> >> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate. From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very interested in the NMI. >> >> I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to participate but we cannot ask others not to. >> >> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at the same time, saying that it is important for African S to participate. >> >> All for now >> >> Nnenna >> >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: >> Jeremy, >> >> Thanks for your email. >> >> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real politics. >> >> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect and impact. >> >> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at stake such as >> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US refused to discuss mass surveillance? >> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing and growing? >> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us. >> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for CS. >> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important than IANA for example? >> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They also create more "values". >> >> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless, CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today. >> >> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. >> >> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the realities that are taking away our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of the WEF. >> >> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and more people. We should not care about that. We should care about having a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the current mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes to convene and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead to some social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence. >> >> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics. >> >> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the debate. That would be fair. >> >> JC >> >> >> >> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : >> >>> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: >>>> >>>> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on civil society colleagues" you are referring to, >>> >>> Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post about this at igfwatch.org, because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic for this list. >>> >>>> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen to non JNC members: >>>> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB Initiative) >>> >>> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. >>> >>>> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some quarters to create a "UN Security Council” >>> >>> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? >>> >>>> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi Chehadé: ... >>> >>> None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global [Internet] governance”. >>> >>>> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different participants. >>> >>> I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial meeting. On this much we agree. >>> >>>> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. >>> >>> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I certainly have (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their endorsement of the Initiative. >>> >>> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off list, two emails in support, as well as one against). >>> >>>> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): >>> >>> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a flight a few hours later. But I write this brief response just because you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not. Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions rather than me monopolising the conversation. >>> >>> -- >>> 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 :: >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -- > ````````````````````````````````` > anriette esterhuysen > executive director > association for progressive communications > po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa > anriette at apc.org > www.apc.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 07:02:46 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 12:02:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for candidates to IGC co-coordinatorship In-Reply-To: References: <20141119171332.Horde.-ida3e_MOQXkL8blFMumEw1@www.ciencitec.com> <1416462995.71905.YahooMailBasic@web172503.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thanks Analia, your candidacy is noted. We will let you know in a few days the information you will need to submit as part of your candidacy. Vincent, do you mean to run for the election in order to figure out whether you'll get the chance? I'd encourage you to do so. Please confirm. Thanks /Mawaki's droid agent On Nov 20, 2014 10:52 AM, "Analia Aspis" wrote: > I would like to volunteer. I am trying to raise IG debate among my country > Argentina, as well as regionally. I have activily participate in remote hub > coordinatios as well as organizing student research group. > Kind regards, > Analía Aspis > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 2:56 AM, vincent solomon > wrote: > >> I would love this opportunity but weather i get the chance is another >> thing . >> >> >> "Limitations live only in our minds. But if we use our imaginations, our >> possibilities become limitless" >> >> NAME: VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA >> CONTACT: +256 773307045 / +256 713307045 / +256 753307045 >> EMAIL:aliama.vincent at cit.mak.ac.ug / vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk / >> vinsoloster at gmail.com >> Skype : vinsolo2 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------- >> On Wed, 19/11/14, jfcallo at ciencitec.com wrote: >> >> Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT: Call for candidates to IGC >> co-coordinatorship >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Mwendwa Kivuva" < >> Kivuva at transworldafrica.com>, "Mawaki Chango" >> Date: Wednesday, 19 November, 2014, 20:13 >> >> English >> Mrs. And Gentlemen >> I come >> voluntarily to support these activities, I regret to say >> that >> for more than a year Chapter of >> ISOC-Perú ago, has no activity, >> despite >> having reported to Ted Mooney on the discrimination of the >> >> current management, has not done anything , >> I call upon the >> International Community >> of ISOC, to do something for Lima, Perú. >> Thank you >> Joseph F. Callo >> Romero >> Founder of ISOC-Perú >> >> Español >> Sras. >> y Señores >> Me presento voluntariamente para >> apoyar estas actividades, lamento >> decir >> que desde hace mas de un año el Capitulo de ISOC-Peru, no >> tiene >> actividad alguna, a pesar de haber >> denunciado a Ted Mooney, sobre la >> discriminación del actual directivo, no se ha >> hecho nada, hago un >> llamado a la >> Comunidad Internacional de ISOC, para que haga algo por >> >> Lima, Perú. >> Gracias >> José F. Callo Romero >> Fundador >> de ISOC-Perú >> >> >> Mwendwa Kivuva >> escribió: >> >> > Thanks >> Mawaki, >> > >> > Though it >> would be a great experience being an IGC coordinator, >> I'm >> > not ready for the >> responsibility this time round. Maybe after a year. >> > If I take it, I risk spreading myself too >> thin. >> > >> > Regards >> > ______________________ >> > Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya >> > L: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lordmwesh >> > B: http://lord.me.ke/ >> > >> T: 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 19 November 2014 06:12, Mawaki Chango >> wrote: >> >> Mwendwa, I got excited for >> two reasons: 1) that there was a reply to this >> >> thread, and 2) seeing your name and >> thinking there we have a good candidate! >> >> Oh well, I guess I'll have to be a >> little more patient on this one. Thanks >> >> for your nice words anyway. >> >> >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:30 AM, >> Mwendwa Kivuva >> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Thanks Mawaki, you did an >> excellent job at the IGC with much energy >> >>> and dedication. As we have seen >> before, the work of the coordinator is >> >>> not an easy one. >> >>> >> >>> We >> salute you >> >>> >> >>> On 18/11/2014, Mawaki Chango >> >> wrote: >> >>> > Dear All, >> >>> > >> >>> >> > Now that the excitement of the new MAG is over it's >> time for us at the >> >>> > IGC >> >>> > to have our own election. We >> need to elect a second Co-coordinator. The >> >>> > results of the elections for >> new Co-coordinators a year ago gave Mawaki >> >>> > a >> >>> > one year term. As he already >> suggested at several occasions including >> >>> > during the election last >> year, he is not in position to serve two more >> >>> > years. In other words, Mawaki >> does not intend to stand again. >> >>> >> > >> >>> > We invite members of >> the IGC to nominate candidates (please check with >> >>> > them >> >>> > first about their willingness >> to serve), or to nominate themselves as a >> >>> > co-coordinator to serve from >> 2015-2017. >> >>> > >> >>> > Nominations will be open >> until 19th December, midnight UTC. >> >>> > >> >>> >> > Best regards, >> >>> > >> >>> > Mawaki Chango >> >>> > Deirdre Williams >> >>> > IGC Co-coordinators >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> >> ______________________ >> >>> 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows----- >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on >> the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information >> and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's >> charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Thu Nov 20 07:20:16 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 13:20:16 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> Jeanette, Thanks for sharing Anja's skepticism. But Anja has expressed, more importantly in my opinion, precise questions and given detailed information that ignited her skepticism. Where are the answers to her questions? Anriette has made suggestions: where are the reactions? Talking about relevant actors: is WEF a relevant actor? WEF is a network of corporations, big ones. Shouldn't civil society engage instead the smaller entrepreneurs, who creates much more jobs that the WEF membership? What is the criteria to say that it is worth to engage WEF rather than other groupings? WEF has a high media added-value. I agree, but then just ask for a tribune in Davos, to start with. You question the qualified and trustworthy candidates, fine, but you totally ignore to answer the pending questions by many of us: what is this all about? Is this process worth the effort and, if NUY lab is already elaborating the written conclusions of the initiative, do we need to bother to write the conclusions of it with any qualified and trustworthy candidate. If so, you should revise your judgement and buy the argument (no copyright on this!) that those who are willing to get involved are doing this for career purposes. Some have already got their career boosted at ICANN and a few other cool places, might feel that it would be smart for those without a comfortable seat to join the carrousel of vanities. Thanks JC Le 20 nov. 2014 à 12:43, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : > Hi all, I share Anja's skepticism but also Anriette's more principled stance on participating in new processes. We need to communicate with relevant actors in this field. Ultimately I think the pragmatic question is if we find a sufficient number of qualified and trustworthy candidates who are willing to contribute on our behalf in the NMI. Whether or not we have experienced people who want to participate is a valuable indicator in itself, don't you agree? (I don't buy the well-known argument that those who are willing to get involved do this for career purposes.) > Jeanette > > On 20 November 2014 11:49:06 CET, Ian Peter wrote: >> Thanks Nnenna. >> >> Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of >> opinion. >> >> Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others. >> It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was >> reciprocated. >> >> The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when >> someones personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that >> people stop expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It would >> be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And >> some voices have already been silenced on this issue. >> >> We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can agree to >> respect differences of opinion. >> >> Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building >> APC as “ an international network and non profit organisation that >> wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve >> our lives and create a more just world”. No, she is not abandoning the >> pursuit of social justice. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> From: Nnenna Nwakanma >> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM >> To: michael gurstein >> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in >> NETmundial Initiative - RFC >> >> Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me >> the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is >> not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as >> abandoning the pursuit of social justice? >> >> >> If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson >> Mandela. And it is him who said: >> "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your >> enemy. Then he becomes your partner." >> >> >> I will rest my case for now >> >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein >> wrote: >> >> So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI offers >> some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, >> you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of >> social justice. >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> >> >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette >> Esterhuysen >> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM >> To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma >> Cc: Governance; Best Bits >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in >> NETmundial Initiative - RFC >> >> >> >> Dear all >> >> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our >> members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with >> project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on >> IG, so apologies for not participating. >> >> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have >> also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while >> there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the >> process a try. >> >> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, >> and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position. >> I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is >> legitimate and clear. >> >> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how >> Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black >> and white'. >> >> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we >> expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late >> August have actually been addressed. >> >> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more >> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and >> its mechanisms. >> >> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we >> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at >> national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to >> many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive >> democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through >> closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental >> processes and mechanisms. >> >> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. >> >> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the >> following: >> >> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us >> - a limited timeframe >> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we >> continue or not >> >> >> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it >> closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to >> get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our >> particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the >> process and whether it meets the criteria important to us. >> >> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns >> out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, and >> we can always withdraw. >> >> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most >> progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights >> inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I >> think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the >> NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and >> implement, internet governance. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed >> some light on why their government has decided to support this >> initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I >> have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't >> help but wonder whether I'm missing something here. >> >> >> >> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour >> of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though >> as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations >> who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the >> wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian >> government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power >> centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given >> themselves some fixed seats. >> >> >> >> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee >> means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" >> clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others >> on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at >> NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would >> be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like >> the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp >> things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the >> structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that >> they would not have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would >> say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is something that a >> representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal >> conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, such as >> that map, might have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am >> not so certain) >> >> >> >> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring >> the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by >> Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're >> thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it >> forward. >> >> >> >> Thanks and best, >> >> Anja >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >> >> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil >> Society members here. >> >> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to >> table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be >> withdrawn if XYZ is not met. >> >> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I >> dont think we should miss out. >> >> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate. >> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very >> interested in the NMI. >> >> I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to >> participate but we cannot ask others not to. >> >> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at >> the same time, saying that it is important for African S to >> participate. >> >> All for now >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >> Journal wrote: >> >> Jeremy, >> >> Thanks for your email. >> >> >> >> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do >> not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to >> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real >> politics. >> >> >> >> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect >> and impact. >> >> >> >> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or >> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of >> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks >> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a >> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends >> with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious >> tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant >> for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the partition >> behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some >> troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a >> street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at stake >> such as >> >> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US >> refused to discuss mass surveillance? >> >> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing >> and growing? >> >> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, >> insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of >> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao >> Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass >> surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us. >> >> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU >> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that >> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links >> they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for >> CS. >> >> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important >> than IANA for example? >> >> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it >> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying >> the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help >> ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all >> the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their >> innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They >> also create more "values". >> >> >> >> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless, >> CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the >> weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame >> JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today. >> >> >> >> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a >> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist >> their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it >> not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go >> directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when >> launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep >> creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory >> boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. We >> are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. >> >> >> >> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate >> and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and >> corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we >> live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow >> citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do >> not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the >> realities that are taking away our rights. This is what should be done, >> now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about the >> comfortable sofas of the WEF. >> >> >> >> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. >> JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and >> more people. We should not care about that. We should care about having >> a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the >> current mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism >> when it comes to convene and consult many participants is certainly >> nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put in our >> mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on the >> public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had to go >> through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone nowhere. Only >> a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical issues doesn't >> equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead to some >> social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence. >> >> >> >> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias >> is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no >> barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to >> avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales >> as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics. >> >> >> >> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil >> society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that >> we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have >> hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the >> debate. That would be fair. >> >> >> >> JC >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : >> >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >> Journal wrote: >> >> >> >> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a >> personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping >> on civil society colleagues" you are referring to, >> >> >> >> Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post about >> this at igfwatch.org, because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic for this >> list. >> >> >> >> >> >> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen >> to non JNC members: >> >> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread >> Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew >> Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB >> Initiative) >> >> >> >> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. >> >> >> >> >> >> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some >> quarters to create a "UN Security Council” >> >> >> >> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? >> >> >> >> >> >> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi >> Chehadé: ... >> >> >> >> None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative >> as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global [Internet] >> governance”. >> >> >> >> >> >> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC >> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to >> participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) >> of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of >> what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by >> different participants. >> >> >> >> I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative >> (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial >> meeting. On this much we agree. >> >> >> >> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... >> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns >> seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the >> WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. >> >> >> >> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I >> certainly have >> (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). >> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial >> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of >> other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their >> endorsement of the Initiative. >> >> >> >> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was >> sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off >> list, two emails in support, as well as one against). >> >> >> >> >> >> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): >> >> >> >> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now >> because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a >> flight a few hours later. But I write this brief response just because >> you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not. >> Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions rather than >> me monopolising the conversation. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> 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 :: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________You >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To unsubscribe or change your settings, >> visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> -- `````````````````````````````````anriette esterhuysenexecutive >> directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755, >> melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Thu Nov 20 10:07:31 2014 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 05:07:31 -1000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: I am happy there are no fence sitters. The best solution to end the deadlock would be for Civil Society to give it's demands to NMI. Top among them being:- 1. Have a bottom up approach 2. Include all stakeholders on equal footing. Not setting permanent seats for CGI, ICANN, and WEF, then inviting everybody else to share the remaining morsels. The current situation looks like carrots are being dangled at CS. 3. Debate and Redefine the principles and mandate on which NMI is build upon with input from all. Staying totally away from NMI without giving dialogue a chance would not help. Through CSCG, we can have a common statement sent out to NMI stating our objections and expectations. Sincerely, ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya L: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lordmwesh B: http://lord.me.ke/ T: 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 20 November 2014 02:47, Renata Avila wrote: > Dear all, > > I do not write often in this list, but, as I made it clear earlier at the > closing ceremony of Net Mundial Initiative, I am really concerned at any > effort adopting the Net Mundial ¨final¨ outcome as such, as final. Mrs. > Rousseff started her crusade as an effort to tackle or at least, somehow, > regulate the pervasive surveillance from a group of governments against all > citizens. The result was a monster, the process was flawed, the language > against massive surveillance was weak, the introduction the language to > please the copyright lobby really undermined solid, multiyear efforts of the > copyright reformists, too. Adopting such document, which so far is just the > result of an event outside the regular events around Internet Governance is > simply dangerous and silly, because in no way is a big victory for two of > the most important battles for the future of our knowledge societies, of our > free societies. A rigid exam, or even an exam at first sight of the outcome > document will show that it certainly fails to adopt the highest human rights > standards. > > The other issue was participation. As you can see in the brilliant work by > CIS India http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/index.html and the attached > maps, the voices from the global south, especially the poorest countries > from Africa and Latin America, where largely missing in the debates. It was > a North lead debate. It was a highly specialised debate, but, paradoxically, > with terrible flaws as there were Internet Governance experts, but, except > for the very good contributions of privacy experts like Jacob Appelbaum and > Copyright experts like Mishi, there was a vast lack of expertise, or at > least no unity in key demands. > > So for me, in spite of the good faith of the Brazilians, any effort that > will marry with the Net Mundial Final Document as such, as final, is flawed > and has very little reform or even information potential for Civil Society. > Because we will not be asking for and promoting the adoption of higher but > lower standards, because the whole exercise lacks the voices and concerns > for the very actors which will be the most affected by the adoption of such > principles and roadmap as the one forward and because, again, very few of > those who are not represented will be able to afford the time and resources > that such initiative demands. So it will be again, a conversation among few. > > There is also the public v. private interest here, but that issue has been > discussed extensively. My concern is basically the legitimacy we are giving > to such disastrous outcome, reaching and promoting a new low. > > * This is a personal opinion and in no way reflects the opinion or position > of the Web Foundation. > > Renata > > > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global > Journal wrote: >> >> Jeanette, >> >> Thanks for sharing Anja's skepticism. But Anja has expressed, more >> importantly in my opinion, precise questions and given detailed information >> that ignited her skepticism. Where are the answers to her questions? >> Anriette has made suggestions: where are the reactions? Talking about >> relevant actors: is WEF a relevant actor? WEF is a network of corporations, >> big ones. Shouldn't civil society engage instead the smaller entrepreneurs, >> who creates much more jobs that the WEF membership? What is the criteria to >> say that it is worth to engage WEF rather than other groupings? WEF has a >> high media added-value. I agree, but then just ask for a tribune in Davos, >> to start with. >> >> You question the qualified and trustworthy candidates, fine, but you >> totally ignore to answer the pending questions by many of us: what is this >> all about? Is this process worth the effort and, if NUY lab is already >> elaborating the written conclusions of the initiative, do we need to bother >> to write the conclusions of it with any qualified and trustworthy candidate. >> If so, you should revise your judgement and buy the argument (no copyright >> on this!) that those who are willing to get involved are doing this for >> career purposes. Some have already got their career boosted at ICANN and a >> few other cool places, might feel that it would be smart for those without a >> comfortable seat to join the carrousel of vanities. >> >> Thanks >> JC >> >> >> Le 20 nov. 2014 à 12:43, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : >> >> Hi all, I share Anja's skepticism but also Anriette's more principled >> stance on participating in new processes. We need to communicate with >> relevant actors in this field. Ultimately I think the pragmatic question is >> if we find a sufficient number of qualified and trustworthy candidates who >> are willing to contribute on our behalf in the NMI. Whether or not we have >> experienced people who want to participate is a valuable indicator in >> itself, don't you agree? (I don't buy the well-known argument that those who >> are willing to get involved do this for career purposes.) >> Jeanette >> >> On 20 November 2014 11:49:06 CET, Ian Peter >> wrote: >> >> Thanks Nnenna. >> >> >> Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of >> >> opinion. >> >> >> Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others. >> >> It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was >> >> reciprocated. >> >> >> The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when >> >> someones personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that >> >> people stop expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It would >> >> be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And >> >> some voices have already been silenced on this issue. >> >> >> We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can agree to >> >> respect differences of opinion. >> >> >> Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building >> >> APC as " an international network and non profit organisation that >> >> wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve >> >> our lives and create a more just world". No, she is not abandoning the >> >> pursuit of social justice. >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> >> From: Nnenna Nwakanma >> >> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM >> >> To: michael gurstein >> >> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits >> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in >> >> NETmundial Initiative - RFC >> >> >> Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me >> >> the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is >> >> not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as >> >> abandoning the pursuit of social justice? >> >> >> >> If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson >> >> Mandela. And it is him who said: >> >> "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your >> >> enemy. Then he becomes your partner." >> >> >> >> I will rest my case for now >> >> >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein >> >> wrote: >> >> >> So Anriette, I'm taking from your argument that because the NMI offers >> >> some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, >> >> you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of >> >> social justice. >> >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette >> >> Esterhuysen >> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM >> >> To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma >> >> Cc: Governance; Best Bits >> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in >> >> NETmundial Initiative - RFC >> >> >> >> >> Dear all >> >> >> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our >> >> members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with >> >> project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on >> >> IG, so apologies for not participating. >> >> >> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have >> >> also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while >> >> there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the >> >> process a try. >> >> >> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, >> >> and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position. >> >> I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is >> >> legitimate and clear. >> >> >> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how >> >> Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black >> >> and white'. >> >> >> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we >> >> expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late >> >> August have actually been addressed. >> >> >> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more >> >> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and >> >> its mechanisms. >> >> >> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we >> >> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at >> >> national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to >> >> many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive >> >> democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through >> >> closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental >> >> processes and mechanisms. >> >> >> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. >> >> >> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the >> >> following: >> >> >> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us >> >> - a limited timeframe >> >> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we >> >> continue or not >> >> >> >> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it >> >> closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to >> >> get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our >> >> particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the >> >> process and whether it meets the criteria important to us. >> >> >> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns >> >> out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, and >> >> we can always withdraw. >> >> >> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most >> >> progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights >> >> inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I >> >> think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the >> >> NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and >> >> implement, internet governance. >> >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> >> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> >> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed >> >> some light on why their government has decided to support this >> >> initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I >> >> have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't >> >> help but wonder whether I'm missing something here. >> >> >> >> >> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour >> >> of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though >> >> as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations >> >> who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the >> >> wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian >> >> government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power >> >> centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given >> >> themselves some fixed seats. >> >> >> >> >> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee >> >> means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" >> >> clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others >> >> on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at >> >> NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would >> >> be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like >> >> the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp >> >> things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the >> >> structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that >> >> they would not have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would >> >> say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is something that a >> >> representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal >> >> conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, such as >> >> that map, might have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am >> >> not so certain) >> >> >> >> >> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring >> >> the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by >> >> Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're >> >> thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it >> >> forward. >> >> >> >> >> Thanks and best, >> >> >> Anja >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >> >> >> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil >> >> Society members here. >> >> >> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to >> >> table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be >> >> withdrawn if XYZ is not met. >> >> >> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I >> >> dont think we should miss out. >> >> >> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate. >> >> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very >> >> interested in the NMI. >> >> >> I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to >> >> participate but we cannot ask others not to. >> >> >> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at >> >> the same time, saying that it is important for African S to >> >> participate. >> >> >> All for now >> >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >> >> Journal wrote: >> >> >> Jeremy, >> >> >> Thanks for your email. >> >> >> >> >> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do >> >> not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to >> >> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real >> >> politics. >> >> >> >> >> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect >> >> and impact. >> >> >> >> >> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or >> >> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of >> >> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks >> >> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a >> >> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends >> >> with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious >> >> tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant >> >> for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the partition >> >> behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some >> >> troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a >> >> street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at stake >> >> such as >> >> >> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US >> >> refused to discuss mass surveillance? >> >> >> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing >> >> and growing? >> >> >> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, >> >> insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of >> >> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao >> >> Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass >> >> surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us. >> >> >> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU >> >> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that >> >> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links >> >> they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for >> >> CS. >> >> >> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important >> >> than IANA for example? >> >> >> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it >> >> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying >> >> the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help >> >> ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all >> >> the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their >> >> innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They >> >> also create more "values". >> >> >> >> >> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless, >> >> CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the >> >> weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame >> >> JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today. >> >> >> >> >> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a >> >> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist >> >> their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it >> >> not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go >> >> directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when >> >> launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep >> >> creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory >> >> boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. We >> >> are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. >> >> >> >> >> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate >> >> and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and >> >> corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we >> >> live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow >> >> citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do >> >> not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the >> >> realities that are taking away our rights. This is what should be done, >> >> now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about the >> >> comfortable sofas of the WEF. >> >> >> >> >> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. >> >> JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and >> >> more people. We should not care about that. We should care about having >> >> a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the >> >> current mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism >> >> when it comes to convene and consult many participants is certainly >> >> nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put in our >> >> mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on the >> >> public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had to go >> >> through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone nowhere. Only >> >> a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical issues doesn't >> >> equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead to some >> >> social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence. >> >> >> >> >> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias >> >> is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no >> >> barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to >> >> avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales >> >> as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics. >> >> >> >> >> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil >> >> society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that >> >> we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have >> >> hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the >> >> debate. That would be fair. >> >> >> >> >> JC >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >> >> Journal wrote: >> >> >> >> >> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a >> >> personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping >> >> on civil society colleagues" you are referring to, >> >> >> >> >> Within the next few days I'm going to write a separate blog post about >> >> this at igfwatch.org, because JNC's pathologies are off-topic for this >> >> list. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen >> >> to non JNC members: >> >> >> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread >> >> Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew >> >> Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB >> >> Initiative) >> >> >> >> >> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some >> >> quarters to create a "UN Security Council" >> >> >> >> >> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi >> >> Chehadé: ... >> >> >> >> >> None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative >> >> as in your letter as "being 'the' mechanism for global [Internet] >> >> governance". >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC >> >> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to >> >> participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) >> >> of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of >> >> what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by >> >> different participants. >> >> >> >> >> I've also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative >> >> (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial >> >> meeting. On this much we agree. >> >> >> >> >> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... >> >> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns >> >> seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the >> >> WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. >> >> >> >> >> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I >> >> certainly have >> >> >> (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). >> >> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial >> >> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of >> >> other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their >> >> endorsement of the Initiative. >> >> >> >> >> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was >> >> sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off >> >> list, two emails in support, as well as one against). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): >> >> >> >> >> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now >> >> because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a >> >> flight a few hours later. But I write this brief response just because >> >> you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I'm not. >> >> Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions rather than >> >> me monopolising the conversation. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> 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 :: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________You >> >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To unsubscribe or change your settings, >> >> visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> -- `````````````````````````````````anriette esterhuysenexecutive >> >> directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755, >> >> melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org >> >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> -- >> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > Renata Avila > Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want > Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer > +44 7477168593 (UK) > > World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington D.C. > 20005 USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From antiropy at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 10:27:00 2014 From: antiropy at gmail.com (Byoung-il Oh) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 00:27:00 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: I agree! Byoungil Oh 2014-11-21 0:07 GMT+09:00 Mwendwa Kivuva : > I am happy there are no fence sitters. The best solution to end the > deadlock would be for Civil Society to give it's demands to NMI. Top > among them being:- > 1. Have a bottom up approach > 2. Include all stakeholders on equal footing. Not setting permanent > seats for CGI, ICANN, and WEF, then inviting everybody else to share > the remaining morsels. The current situation looks like carrots are > being dangled at CS. > 3. Debate and Redefine the principles and mandate on which NMI is > build upon with input from all. > > Staying totally away from NMI without giving dialogue a chance would > not help. Through CSCG, we can have a common statement sent out to NMI > stating our objections and expectations. > > Sincerely, > ______________________ > Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya > L: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lordmwesh > B: http://lord.me.ke/ > T: 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 20 November 2014 02:47, Renata Avila wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > I do not write often in this list, but, as I made it clear earlier at the > > closing ceremony of Net Mundial Initiative, I am really concerned at any > > effort adopting the Net Mundial ¨final¨ outcome as such, as final. Mrs. > > Rousseff started her crusade as an effort to tackle or at least, somehow, > > regulate the pervasive surveillance from a group of governments against > all > > citizens. The result was a monster, the process was flawed, the language > > against massive surveillance was weak, the introduction the language to > > please the copyright lobby really undermined solid, multiyear efforts of > the > > copyright reformists, too. Adopting such document, which so far is just > the > > result of an event outside the regular events around Internet Governance > is > > simply dangerous and silly, because in no way is a big victory for two of > > the most important battles for the future of our knowledge societies, of > our > > free societies. A rigid exam, or even an exam at first sight of the > outcome > > document will show that it certainly fails to adopt the highest human > rights > > standards. > > > > The other issue was participation. As you can see in the brilliant work > by > > CIS India http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/index.html and the > attached > > maps, the voices from the global south, especially the poorest countries > > from Africa and Latin America, where largely missing in the debates. It > was > > a North lead debate. It was a highly specialised debate, but, > paradoxically, > > with terrible flaws as there were Internet Governance experts, but, > except > > for the very good contributions of privacy experts like Jacob Appelbaum > and > > Copyright experts like Mishi, there was a vast lack of expertise, or at > > least no unity in key demands. > > > > So for me, in spite of the good faith of the Brazilians, any effort that > > will marry with the Net Mundial Final Document as such, as final, is > flawed > > and has very little reform or even information potential for Civil > Society. > > Because we will not be asking for and promoting the adoption of higher > but > > lower standards, because the whole exercise lacks the voices and concerns > > for the very actors which will be the most affected by the adoption of > such > > principles and roadmap as the one forward and because, again, very few of > > those who are not represented will be able to afford the time and > resources > > that such initiative demands. So it will be again, a conversation among > few. > > > > There is also the public v. private interest here, but that issue has > been > > discussed extensively. My concern is basically the legitimacy we are > giving > > to such disastrous outcome, reaching and promoting a new low. > > > > * This is a personal opinion and in no way reflects the opinion or > position > > of the Web Foundation. > > > > Renata > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global > > Journal wrote: > >> > >> Jeanette, > >> > >> Thanks for sharing Anja's skepticism. But Anja has expressed, more > >> importantly in my opinion, precise questions and given detailed > information > >> that ignited her skepticism. Where are the answers to her questions? > >> Anriette has made suggestions: where are the reactions? Talking about > >> relevant actors: is WEF a relevant actor? WEF is a network of > corporations, > >> big ones. Shouldn't civil society engage instead the smaller > entrepreneurs, > >> who creates much more jobs that the WEF membership? What is the > criteria to > >> say that it is worth to engage WEF rather than other groupings? WEF has > a > >> high media added-value. I agree, but then just ask for a tribune in > Davos, > >> to start with. > >> > >> You question the qualified and trustworthy candidates, fine, but you > >> totally ignore to answer the pending questions by many of us: what is > this > >> all about? Is this process worth the effort and, if NUY lab is already > >> elaborating the written conclusions of the initiative, do we need to > bother > >> to write the conclusions of it with any qualified and trustworthy > candidate. > >> If so, you should revise your judgement and buy the argument (no > copyright > >> on this!) that those who are willing to get involved are doing this for > >> career purposes. Some have already got their career boosted at ICANN > and a > >> few other cool places, might feel that it would be smart for those > without a > >> comfortable seat to join the carrousel of vanities. > >> > >> Thanks > >> JC > >> > >> > >> Le 20 nov. 2014 à 12:43, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : > >> > >> Hi all, I share Anja's skepticism but also Anriette's more principled > >> stance on participating in new processes. We need to communicate with > >> relevant actors in this field. Ultimately I think the pragmatic > question is > >> if we find a sufficient number of qualified and trustworthy candidates > who > >> are willing to contribute on our behalf in the NMI. Whether or not we > have > >> experienced people who want to participate is a valuable indicator in > >> itself, don't you agree? (I don't buy the well-known argument that > those who > >> are willing to get involved do this for career purposes.) > >> Jeanette > >> > >> On 20 November 2014 11:49:06 CET, Ian Peter > >> wrote: > >> > >> Thanks Nnenna. > >> > >> > >> Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of > >> > >> opinion. > >> > >> > >> Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others. > >> > >> It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was > >> > >> reciprocated. > >> > >> > >> The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when > >> > >> someones personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that > >> > >> people stop expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It would > >> > >> be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And > >> > >> some voices have already been silenced on this issue. > >> > >> > >> We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can agree to > >> > >> respect differences of opinion. > >> > >> > >> Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building > >> > >> APC as " an international network and non profit organisation that > >> > >> wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve > >> > >> our lives and create a more just world". No, she is not abandoning the > >> > >> pursuit of social justice. > >> > >> > >> Ian Peter > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> From: Nnenna Nwakanma > >> > >> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM > >> > >> To: michael gurstein > >> > >> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits > >> > >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in > >> > >> NETmundial Initiative - RFC > >> > >> > >> Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me > >> > >> the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is > >> > >> not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as > >> > >> abandoning the pursuit of social justice? > >> > >> > >> > >> If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson > >> > >> Mandela. And it is him who said: > >> > >> "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your > >> > >> enemy. Then he becomes your partner." > >> > >> > >> > >> I will rest my case for now > >> > >> > >> > >> Nnenna > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> So Anriette, I'm taking from your argument that because the NMI offers > >> > >> some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, > >> > >> you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of > >> > >> social justice. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> M > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > >> > >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette > >> > >> Esterhuysen > >> > >> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM > >> > >> To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma > >> > >> Cc: Governance; Best Bits > >> > >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in > >> > >> NETmundial Initiative - RFC > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Dear all > >> > >> > >> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our > >> > >> members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with > >> > >> project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on > >> > >> IG, so apologies for not participating. > >> > >> > >> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have > >> > >> also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while > >> > >> there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the > >> > >> process a try. > >> > >> > >> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, > >> > >> and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position. > >> > >> I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is > >> > >> legitimate and clear. > >> > >> > >> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how > >> > >> Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black > >> > >> and white'. > >> > >> > >> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we > >> > >> expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late > >> > >> August have actually been addressed. > >> > >> > >> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more > >> > >> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and > >> > >> its mechanisms. > >> > >> > >> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we > >> > >> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at > >> > >> national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to > >> > >> many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive > >> > >> democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through > >> > >> closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental > >> > >> processes and mechanisms. > >> > >> > >> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. > >> > >> > >> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the > >> > >> following: > >> > >> > >> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us > >> > >> - a limited timeframe > >> > >> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we > >> > >> continue or not > >> > >> > >> > >> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it > >> > >> closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to > >> > >> get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our > >> > >> particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the > >> > >> process and whether it meets the criteria important to us. > >> > >> > >> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns > >> > >> out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, and > >> > >> we can always withdraw. > >> > >> > >> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most > >> > >> progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights > >> > >> inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I > >> > >> think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the > >> > >> NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and > >> > >> implement, internet governance. > >> > >> > >> Anriette > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: > >> > >> > >> Dear all, > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed > >> > >> some light on why their government has decided to support this > >> > >> initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I > >> > >> have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't > >> > >> help but wonder whether I'm missing something here. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour > >> > >> of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though > >> > >> as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations > >> > >> who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the > >> > >> wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian > >> > >> government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power > >> > >> centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given > >> > >> themselves some fixed seats. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee > >> > >> means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" > >> > >> clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others > >> > >> on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at > >> > >> NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would > >> > >> be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like > >> > >> the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp > >> > >> things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the > >> > >> structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that > >> > >> they would not have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would > >> > >> say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is something that a > >> > >> representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal > >> > >> conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, such as > >> > >> that map, might have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am > >> > >> not so certain) > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring > >> > >> the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by > >> > >> Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're > >> > >> thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it > >> > >> forward. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks and best, > >> > >> > >> Anja > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > >> > >> > >> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil > >> > >> Society members here. > >> > >> > >> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to > >> > >> table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be > >> > >> withdrawn if XYZ is not met. > >> > >> > >> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I > >> > >> dont think we should miss out. > >> > >> > >> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate. > >> > >> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very > >> > >> interested in the NMI. > >> > >> > >> I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to > >> > >> participate but we cannot ask others not to. > >> > >> > >> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at > >> > >> the same time, saying that it is important for African S to > >> > >> participate. > >> > >> > >> All for now > >> > >> > >> Nnenna > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global > >> > >> Journal wrote: > >> > >> > >> Jeremy, > >> > >> > >> Thanks for your email. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do > >> > >> not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to > >> > >> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real > >> > >> politics. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect > >> > >> and impact. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or > >> > >> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of > >> > >> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks > >> > >> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a > >> > >> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends > >> > >> with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious > >> > >> tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant > >> > >> for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the partition > >> > >> behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some > >> > >> troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a > >> > >> street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at stake > >> > >> such as > >> > >> > >> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US > >> > >> refused to discuss mass surveillance? > >> > >> > >> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing > >> > >> and growing? > >> > >> > >> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, > >> > >> insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of > >> > >> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao > >> > >> Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass > >> > >> surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us. > >> > >> > >> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU > >> > >> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that > >> > >> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links > >> > >> they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for > >> > >> CS. > >> > >> > >> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important > >> > >> than IANA for example? > >> > >> > >> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it > >> > >> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying > >> > >> the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help > >> > >> ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all > >> > >> the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their > >> > >> innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They > >> > >> also create more "values". > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless, > >> > >> CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the > >> > >> weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame > >> > >> JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a > >> > >> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist > >> > >> their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it > >> > >> not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go > >> > >> directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when > >> > >> launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep > >> > >> creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory > >> > >> boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. We > >> > >> are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate > >> > >> and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and > >> > >> corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we > >> > >> live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow > >> > >> citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do > >> > >> not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the > >> > >> realities that are taking away our rights. This is what should be done, > >> > >> now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about the > >> > >> comfortable sofas of the WEF. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. > >> > >> JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and > >> > >> more people. We should not care about that. We should care about having > >> > >> a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the > >> > >> current mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism > >> > >> when it comes to convene and consult many participants is certainly > >> > >> nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put in our > >> > >> mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on the > >> > >> public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had to go > >> > >> through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone nowhere. Only > >> > >> a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical issues doesn't > >> > >> equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead to some > >> > >> social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias > >> > >> is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no > >> > >> barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to > >> > >> avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales > >> > >> as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil > >> > >> society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that > >> > >> we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have > >> > >> hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the > >> > >> debate. That would be fair. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> JC > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global > >> > >> Journal wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a > >> > >> personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping > >> > >> on civil society colleagues" you are referring to, > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Within the next few days I'm going to write a separate blog post about > >> > >> this at igfwatch.org, because JNC's pathologies are off-topic for this > >> > >> list. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen > >> > >> to non JNC members: > >> > >> > >> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread > >> > >> Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew > >> > >> Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB > >> > >> Initiative) > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some > >> > >> quarters to create a "UN Security Council" > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi > >> > >> Chehadé: ... > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative > >> > >> as in your letter as "being 'the' mechanism for global [Internet] > >> > >> governance". > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC > >> > >> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to > >> > >> participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) > >> > >> of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of > >> > >> what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by > >> > >> different participants. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> I've also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative > >> > >> (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial > >> > >> meeting. On this much we agree. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... > >> > >> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns > >> > >> seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the > >> > >> WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I > >> > >> certainly have > >> > >> > >> ( > http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles > ). > >> > >> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial > >> > >> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of > >> > >> other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their > >> > >> endorsement of the Initiative. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was > >> > >> sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off > >> > >> list, two emails in support, as well as one against). > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now > >> > >> because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a > >> > >> flight a few hours later. But I write this brief response just because > >> > >> you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I'm not. > >> > >> Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions rather than > >> > >> me monopolising the conversation. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> > >> 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 :: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >> > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >> > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> > >> Dr. Anja Kovacs > >> > >> The Internet Democracy Project > >> > >> > >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > >> > >> www.internetdemocracy.in > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________You > >> > >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To unsubscribe or change your settings, > >> > >> visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- `````````````````````````````````anriette esterhuysenexecutive > >> > >> directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755, > >> > >> melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >> > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Renata Avila > > Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want > > Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer > > +44 7477168593 (UK) > > > > World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington > D.C. > > 20005 USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 10:41:26 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 15:41:26 +0000 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <4D5FE9B9-60E9-4AE4-BC19-5A72B08E78A6@orange.fr> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <1486537673.7522.1416390999726.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f29> <4D5FE9B9-60E9-4AE4-BC19-5A72B08E78A6@orange.fr> Message-ID: Fellas, Some of us have raised questions about the views of the Brazilian party (CGI.br) in this NMI business. But I know they are in a delicate position and may be concerned to appear as judge and jury if they come out strong for a position (and we can expect which that position would be.) Flavio is not on the IGC list but he granted me the permission to forward to this list this message of his below, originally posted to the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN's GNSO. Best, Mawaki Fw: [NCSG-Discuss] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:55 AM, Flávio Rech Wagner < flavio at INF.UFRGS.BR> wrote: Robin I have been informed that the "transitional council" of the NMI - NETmundial Initiative (which contains representatives from ICANN, CGI.br and WEF and is provisory, until the 25 names of the permanent council have been defined) is having an intense dialogue with CSCG (the Civil Society Coordination Group) and, together, they shall come to a solution for appointing names to the council by consensus and fully respecting nominations from Civil Society. There is no intention whatsoever from the transitional council to indicate names in a closed, top-down manner and without full endorsement from CSCG. The transitional council also expects to achieve similar solutions for appointing names that will represent other stakeholder groups. Please notice that CGI.br (the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee), which is one of the entities proposing the NMI, would never agree with top-down, closed decisions that would strongly undermine CGI's legitimacy as a true bottom-up, multistakeholder body. CGI.br is completely committed to preserve the NETmundial principles in the implementation of the NMI. Please remember also that, when NETmundial was proposed by the end of 2013, all of us in the global Internet Governance (IG) community, because of lack of information, were puzzled about its organization and possible success and outcomes. But the global community faced the challenge and transformed a vague idea into a successful event, with a true multistakeholder organization, with very open and transparent processes, and with a final document that was achieved by rough consensus and approved governance principles that were praised by most of the stakeholders (including human rights and other principles that are extremely valued by Civil Society). So let's try to transform NMI, which is still also a vague idea, into something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG and that fully respects the principles enshrined in the NETmundial declaration. Flávio (NCUC member and member of the Board of CGI.br) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 20 10:59:06 2014 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 09:59:06 -0600 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: Thanks, Mwenda, I like this approach. I think it will be helpful. Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *Application deadline approaching: * Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance option http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD * ** * On 20 November 2014 09:27, Byoung-il Oh wrote: > I agree! > > Byoungil Oh > > > 2014-11-21 0:07 GMT+09:00 Mwendwa Kivuva : > >> I am happy there are no fence sitters. The best solution to end the >> deadlock would be for Civil Society to give it's demands to NMI. Top >> among them being:- >> 1. Have a bottom up approach >> 2. Include all stakeholders on equal footing. Not setting permanent >> seats for CGI, ICANN, and WEF, then inviting everybody else to share >> the remaining morsels. The current situation looks like carrots are >> being dangled at CS. >> 3. Debate and Redefine the principles and mandate on which NMI is >> build upon with input from all. >> >> Staying totally away from NMI without giving dialogue a chance would >> not help. Through CSCG, we can have a common statement sent out to NMI >> stating our objections and expectations. >> >> Sincerely, >> ______________________ >> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya >> L: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lordmwesh >> B: http://lord.me.ke/ >> T: 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 20 November 2014 02:47, Renata Avila wrote: >> > Dear all, >> > >> > I do not write often in this list, but, as I made it clear earlier at >> the >> > closing ceremony of Net Mundial Initiative, I am really concerned at any >> > effort adopting the Net Mundial ¨final¨ outcome as such, as final. Mrs. >> > Rousseff started her crusade as an effort to tackle or at least, >> somehow, >> > regulate the pervasive surveillance from a group of governments against >> all >> > citizens. The result was a monster, the process was flawed, the language >> > against massive surveillance was weak, the introduction the language to >> > please the copyright lobby really undermined solid, multiyear efforts >> of the >> > copyright reformists, too. Adopting such document, which so far is just >> the >> > result of an event outside the regular events around Internet >> Governance is >> > simply dangerous and silly, because in no way is a big victory for two >> of >> > the most important battles for the future of our knowledge societies, >> of our >> > free societies. A rigid exam, or even an exam at first sight of the >> outcome >> > document will show that it certainly fails to adopt the highest human >> rights >> > standards. >> > >> > The other issue was participation. As you can see in the brilliant work >> by >> > CIS India http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/index.html and the >> attached >> > maps, the voices from the global south, especially the poorest countries >> > from Africa and Latin America, where largely missing in the debates. It >> was >> > a North lead debate. It was a highly specialised debate, but, >> paradoxically, >> > with terrible flaws as there were Internet Governance experts, but, >> except >> > for the very good contributions of privacy experts like Jacob Appelbaum >> and >> > Copyright experts like Mishi, there was a vast lack of expertise, or at >> > least no unity in key demands. >> > >> > So for me, in spite of the good faith of the Brazilians, any effort that >> > will marry with the Net Mundial Final Document as such, as final, is >> flawed >> > and has very little reform or even information potential for Civil >> Society. >> > Because we will not be asking for and promoting the adoption of higher >> but >> > lower standards, because the whole exercise lacks the voices and >> concerns >> > for the very actors which will be the most affected by the adoption of >> such >> > principles and roadmap as the one forward and because, again, very few >> of >> > those who are not represented will be able to afford the time and >> resources >> > that such initiative demands. So it will be again, a conversation among >> few. >> > >> > There is also the public v. private interest here, but that issue has >> been >> > discussed extensively. My concern is basically the legitimacy we are >> giving >> > to such disastrous outcome, reaching and promoting a new low. >> > >> > * This is a personal opinion and in no way reflects the opinion or >> position >> > of the Web Foundation. >> > >> > Renata >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >> > Journal wrote: >> >> >> >> Jeanette, >> >> >> >> Thanks for sharing Anja's skepticism. But Anja has expressed, more >> >> importantly in my opinion, precise questions and given detailed >> information >> >> that ignited her skepticism. Where are the answers to her questions? >> >> Anriette has made suggestions: where are the reactions? Talking about >> >> relevant actors: is WEF a relevant actor? WEF is a network of >> corporations, >> >> big ones. Shouldn't civil society engage instead the smaller >> entrepreneurs, >> >> who creates much more jobs that the WEF membership? What is the >> criteria to >> >> say that it is worth to engage WEF rather than other groupings? WEF >> has a >> >> high media added-value. I agree, but then just ask for a tribune in >> Davos, >> >> to start with. >> >> >> >> You question the qualified and trustworthy candidates, fine, but you >> >> totally ignore to answer the pending questions by many of us: what is >> this >> >> all about? Is this process worth the effort and, if NUY lab is already >> >> elaborating the written conclusions of the initiative, do we need to >> bother >> >> to write the conclusions of it with any qualified and trustworthy >> candidate. >> >> If so, you should revise your judgement and buy the argument (no >> copyright >> >> on this!) that those who are willing to get involved are doing this for >> >> career purposes. Some have already got their career boosted at ICANN >> and a >> >> few other cool places, might feel that it would be smart for those >> without a >> >> comfortable seat to join the carrousel of vanities. >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> JC >> >> >> >> >> >> Le 20 nov. 2014 à 12:43, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : >> >> >> >> Hi all, I share Anja's skepticism but also Anriette's more principled >> >> stance on participating in new processes. We need to communicate with >> >> relevant actors in this field. Ultimately I think the pragmatic >> question is >> >> if we find a sufficient number of qualified and trustworthy candidates >> who >> >> are willing to contribute on our behalf in the NMI. Whether or not we >> have >> >> experienced people who want to participate is a valuable indicator in >> >> itself, don't you agree? (I don't buy the well-known argument that >> those who >> >> are willing to get involved do this for career purposes.) >> >> Jeanette >> >> >> >> On 20 November 2014 11:49:06 CET, Ian Peter >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Thanks Nnenna. >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of >> >> >> >> opinion. >> >> >> >> >> >> Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others. >> >> >> >> It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was >> >> >> >> reciprocated. >> >> >> >> >> >> The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when >> >> >> >> someones personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that >> >> >> >> people stop expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It would >> >> >> >> be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And >> >> >> >> some voices have already been silenced on this issue. >> >> >> >> >> >> We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can agree to >> >> >> >> respect differences of opinion. >> >> >> >> >> >> Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building >> >> >> >> APC as " an international network and non profit organisation that >> >> >> >> wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve >> >> >> >> our lives and create a more just world". No, she is not abandoning the >> >> >> >> pursuit of social justice. >> >> >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Nnenna Nwakanma >> >> >> >> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM >> >> >> >> To: michael gurstein >> >> >> >> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits >> >> >> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in >> >> >> >> NETmundial Initiative - RFC >> >> >> >> >> >> Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me >> >> >> >> the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is >> >> >> >> not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as >> >> >> >> abandoning the pursuit of social justice? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson >> >> >> >> Mandela. And it is him who said: >> >> >> >> "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your >> >> >> >> enemy. Then he becomes your partner." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I will rest my case for now >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein > > >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> So Anriette, I'm taking from your argument that because the NMI offers >> >> >> >> some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, >> >> >> >> you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of >> >> >> >> social justice. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> >> >> >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette >> >> >> >> Esterhuysen >> >> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM >> >> >> >> To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma >> >> >> >> Cc: Governance; Best Bits >> >> >> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in >> >> >> >> NETmundial Initiative - RFC >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear all >> >> >> >> >> >> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our >> >> >> >> members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with >> >> >> >> project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on >> >> >> >> IG, so apologies for not participating. >> >> >> >> >> >> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have >> >> >> >> also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while >> >> >> >> there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the >> >> >> >> process a try. >> >> >> >> >> >> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, >> >> >> >> and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position. >> >> >> >> I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is >> >> >> >> legitimate and clear. >> >> >> >> >> >> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how >> >> >> >> Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black >> >> >> >> and white'. >> >> >> >> >> >> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we >> >> >> >> expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late >> >> >> >> August have actually been addressed. >> >> >> >> >> >> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more >> >> >> >> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and >> >> >> >> its mechanisms. >> >> >> >> >> >> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we >> >> >> >> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at >> >> >> >> national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to >> >> >> >> many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive >> >> >> >> democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through >> >> >> >> closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental >> >> >> >> processes and mechanisms. >> >> >> >> >> >> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. >> >> >> >> >> >> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the >> >> >> >> following: >> >> >> >> >> >> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us >> >> >> >> - a limited timeframe >> >> >> >> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we >> >> >> >> continue or not >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it >> >> >> >> closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to >> >> >> >> get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our >> >> >> >> particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the >> >> >> >> process and whether it meets the criteria important to us. >> >> >> >> >> >> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns >> >> >> >> out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, and >> >> >> >> we can always withdraw. >> >> >> >> >> >> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most >> >> >> >> progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights >> >> >> >> inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I >> >> >> >> think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the >> >> >> >> NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and >> >> >> >> implement, internet governance. >> >> >> >> >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed >> >> >> >> some light on why their government has decided to support this >> >> >> >> initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I >> >> >> >> have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't >> >> >> >> help but wonder whether I'm missing something here. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour >> >> >> >> of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though >> >> >> >> as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations >> >> >> >> who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the >> >> >> >> wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian >> >> >> >> government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power >> >> >> >> centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given >> >> >> >> themselves some fixed seats. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee >> >> >> >> means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" >> >> >> >> clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others >> >> >> >> on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at >> >> >> >> NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would >> >> >> >> be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like >> >> >> >> the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp >> >> >> >> things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the >> >> >> >> structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that >> >> >> >> they would not have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would >> >> >> >> say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is something that a >> >> >> >> representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal >> >> >> >> conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, such as >> >> >> >> that map, might have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am >> >> >> >> not so certain) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring >> >> >> >> the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by >> >> >> >> Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're >> >> >> >> thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it >> >> >> >> forward. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks and best, >> >> >> >> >> >> Anja >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil >> >> >> >> Society members here. >> >> >> >> >> >> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to >> >> >> >> table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be >> >> >> >> withdrawn if XYZ is not met. >> >> >> >> >> >> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I >> >> >> >> dont think we should miss out. >> >> >> >> >> >> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate. >> >> >> >> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very >> >> >> >> interested in the NMI. >> >> >> >> >> >> I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to >> >> >> >> participate but we cannot ask others not to. >> >> >> >> >> >> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at >> >> >> >> the same time, saying that it is important for African S to >> >> >> >> participate. >> >> >> >> >> >> All for now >> >> >> >> >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >> >> >> >> Journal wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Jeremy, >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks for your email. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do >> >> >> >> not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to >> >> >> >> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real >> >> >> >> politics. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect >> >> >> >> and impact. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or >> >> >> >> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of >> >> >> >> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks >> >> >> >> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a >> >> >> >> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends >> >> >> >> with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious >> >> >> >> tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant >> >> >> >> for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the partition >> >> >> >> behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some >> >> >> >> troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a >> >> >> >> street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at stake >> >> >> >> such as >> >> >> >> >> >> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US >> >> >> >> refused to discuss mass surveillance? >> >> >> >> >> >> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing >> >> >> >> and growing? >> >> >> >> >> >> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, >> >> >> >> insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of >> >> >> >> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao >> >> >> >> Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass >> >> >> >> surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us. >> >> >> >> >> >> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU >> >> >> >> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that >> >> >> >> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links >> >> >> >> they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for >> >> >> >> CS. >> >> >> >> >> >> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important >> >> >> >> than IANA for example? >> >> >> >> >> >> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it >> >> >> >> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying >> >> >> >> the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help >> >> >> >> ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all >> >> >> >> the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their >> >> >> >> innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They >> >> >> >> also create more "values". >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless, >> >> >> >> CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the >> >> >> >> weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame >> >> >> >> JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a >> >> >> >> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist >> >> >> >> their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it >> >> >> >> not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go >> >> >> >> directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when >> >> >> >> launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep >> >> >> >> creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory >> >> >> >> boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. We >> >> >> >> are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate >> >> >> >> and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and >> >> >> >> corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we >> >> >> >> live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow >> >> >> >> citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do >> >> >> >> not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the >> >> >> >> realities that are taking away our rights. This is what should be done, >> >> >> >> now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about the >> >> >> >> comfortable sofas of the WEF. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. >> >> >> >> JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and >> >> >> >> more people. We should not care about that. We should care about having >> >> >> >> a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the >> >> >> >> current mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism >> >> >> >> when it comes to convene and consult many participants is certainly >> >> >> >> nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put in our >> >> >> >> mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on the >> >> >> >> public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had to go >> >> >> >> through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone nowhere. Only >> >> >> >> a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical issues doesn't >> >> >> >> equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead to some >> >> >> >> social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias >> >> >> >> is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no >> >> >> >> barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to >> >> >> >> avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales >> >> >> >> as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil >> >> >> >> society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that >> >> >> >> we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have >> >> >> >> hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the >> >> >> >> debate. That would be fair. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> JC >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >> >> >> >> Journal wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a >> >> >> >> personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping >> >> >> >> on civil society colleagues" you are referring to, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Within the next few days I'm going to write a separate blog post about >> >> >> >> this at igfwatch.org, because JNC's pathologies are off-topic for this >> >> >> >> list. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen >> >> >> >> to non JNC members: >> >> >> >> >> >> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread >> >> >> >> Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew >> >> >> >> Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB >> >> >> >> Initiative) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some >> >> >> >> quarters to create a "UN Security Council" >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi >> >> >> >> Chehadé: ... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative >> >> >> >> as in your letter as "being 'the' mechanism for global [Internet] >> >> >> >> governance". >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC >> >> >> >> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to >> >> >> >> participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) >> >> >> >> of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of >> >> >> >> what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by >> >> >> >> different participants. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I've also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative >> >> >> >> (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial >> >> >> >> meeting. On this much we agree. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... >> >> >> >> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns >> >> >> >> seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the >> >> >> >> WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I >> >> >> >> certainly have >> >> >> >> >> >> ( >> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles >> ). >> >> >> >> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial >> >> >> >> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of >> >> >> >> other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their >> >> >> >> endorsement of the Initiative. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was >> >> >> >> sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off >> >> >> >> list, two emails in support, as well as one against). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now >> >> >> >> because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a >> >> >> >> flight a few hours later. But I write this brief response just because >> >> >> >> you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I'm not. >> >> >> >> Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions rather than >> >> >> >> me monopolising the conversation. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> >> 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 :: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> >> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> >> >> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> >> >> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> >> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> >> >> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> >> >> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> >> >> >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> >> >> >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> >> >> >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________You >> >> >> >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> >> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To unsubscribe or change your settings, >> >> >> >> visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- `````````````````````````````````anriette esterhuysenexecutive >> >> >> >> directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755, >> >> >> >> melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> >> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> >> >> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> >> >> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Renata Avila >> > Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want >> > Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer >> > +44 7477168593 (UK) >> > >> > World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington >> D.C. >> > 20005 USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Thu Nov 20 11:23:08 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 17:23:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <1486537673.7522.1416390999726.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f29> <4D5FE9B9-60E9-4AE4-BC19-5A72B08E78A6@orange.fr> Message-ID: In other words, rhetorics instead of facts. As long as the CS thrives on day dream it gets what it deserves, a few trinkets in bogus committees. Yesterday in Geneva we heard a WEF presentation by a well seasoned professional. It's crystal clear that WEF is a cleverly crafted lure to spot SC weak links and inform their sponsors in big business.. Louis - - - On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Fellas, > Some of us have raised questions about the views of the Brazilian party > (CGI.br) in this NMI business. But I know they are in a delicate position > and may be concerned to appear as judge and jury if they come out strong > for a position (and we can expect which that position would be.) Flavio is > not on the IGC list but he granted me the permission to forward to this > list this message of his below, originally posted to the Non-Commercial > Stakeholder Group of ICANN's GNSO. > Best, > > Mawaki > > > Fw: [NCSG-Discuss] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL > INITIATIVE > > On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:55 AM, Flávio Rech Wagner < > flavio at INF.UFRGS.BR> wrote: > > > Robin > > I have been informed that the "transitional council" of the NMI - > NETmundial Initiative (which contains representatives from ICANN, CGI.br > and WEF and is provisory, until the 25 names of the permanent council have > been defined) is having an intense dialogue with CSCG (the Civil Society > Coordination Group) and, together, they shall come to a solution for > appointing names to the council by consensus and fully respecting > nominations from Civil Society. There is no intention whatsoever from the > transitional council to indicate names in a closed, top-down manner and > without full endorsement from CSCG. > > The transitional council also expects to achieve similar solutions for > appointing names that will represent other stakeholder groups. > > Please notice that CGI.br (the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee), > which is one of the entities proposing the NMI, would never agree with > top-down, closed decisions that would strongly undermine CGI's legitimacy > as a true bottom-up, multistakeholder body. CGI.br is completely committed > to preserve the NETmundial principles in the implementation of the NMI. > > Please remember also that, when NETmundial was proposed by the end of > 2013, all of us in the global Internet Governance (IG) community, because > of lack of information, were puzzled about its organization and possible > success and outcomes. But the global community faced the challenge and > transformed a vague idea into a successful event, with a true > multistakeholder organization, with very open and transparent processes, > and with a final document that was achieved by rough consensus and approved > governance principles that were praised by most of the stakeholders > (including human rights and other principles that are extremely valued by > Civil Society). > > So let's try to transform NMI, which is still also a vague idea, into > something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG and that > fully respects the principles enshrined in the NETmundial declaration. > > Flávio > (NCUC member and member of the Board of CGI.br) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 20 12:30:04 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:30:04 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20141120183004.2dcc15c6@quill> Ian Peter wrote: > Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others. > It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was > reciprocated. I would like to hereby express my sincere respect for all activists and for all of organized civil society and for all others who work on the basis of values of social justice, human rights, democracy and the rule of law, and whose objectives include to improve the lives of people. However I do not think that such respect implies that all communication must always explicitly express this respect, nor that it would imply that pointed questions and a focus on aspects of criticism are not sometimes warranted. While we may disagree in specific situations on whether something is deserving of criticism, I think we all agree in principle that there are situations in the world where things are seriously going wrong and which can't be expected to improve in the absence of criticism. Of course it is important for such criticism to be expressed within the boundaries of what is acceptable conduct in the context of democratic discourse. (A reasonably good characterization of where these boundaries should be considered to be in the context of an email discussion list is expressed in the IGC's “posting rules”, which the IGC unfortunately seems to be institutionally incapable of enforcing or otherwise living up to -- this has been the case even when a serious attempt to achieve that was made, as I did during my time as IGC co-coordinator.) Criticism which violates these boundaries is indeed incompatible with the principle of mutual respect even in the presence of potentially serious disagreements. Specifically, I do not think that the JNC position of “we think it shouldn't be done, and we criticize those who do it” is any more a disrespectful stance than a position of “we take note that JNC thinks it shouldn't be done and we respect that but be still do it” which is also not disrespectful. Greetings, Norbert JNC co-convenor -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Nov 20 12:33:46 2014 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 12:33:46 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: I will note that it's quite good for there to be a contingent of civil society that's refusing to accommodate -- leaves a clear claim among civil society advocates to the priority of MSism as it was before "Fadi's phase II." Keep in mind Fadi's likely enough doing this NMI and GIP phase *because* he didn't get everything he wanted from NM.br . Seth (still agnostic, but I think a divide on this point in civil society is a good thing, so long as you're clear what you gain by drawing the line) On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Mwendwa Kivuva wrote: > I am happy there are no fence sitters. The best solution to end the > deadlock would be for Civil Society to give it's demands to NMI. Top > among them being:- > 1. Have a bottom up approach > 2. Include all stakeholders on equal footing. Not setting permanent > seats for CGI, ICANN, and WEF, then inviting everybody else to share > the remaining morsels. The current situation looks like carrots are > being dangled at CS. > 3. Debate and Redefine the principles and mandate on which NMI is > build upon with input from all. > > Staying totally away from NMI without giving dialogue a chance would > not help. Through CSCG, we can have a common statement sent out to NMI > stating our objections and expectations. > > Sincerely, > ______________________ > Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya > L: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lordmwesh > B: http://lord.me.ke/ > T: 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 20 November 2014 02:47, Renata Avila wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> I do not write often in this list, but, as I made it clear earlier at the >> closing ceremony of Net Mundial Initiative, I am really concerned at any >> effort adopting the Net Mundial ¨final¨ outcome as such, as final. Mrs. >> Rousseff started her crusade as an effort to tackle or at least, somehow, >> regulate the pervasive surveillance from a group of governments against all >> citizens. The result was a monster, the process was flawed, the language >> against massive surveillance was weak, the introduction the language to >> please the copyright lobby really undermined solid, multiyear efforts of the >> copyright reformists, too. Adopting such document, which so far is just the >> result of an event outside the regular events around Internet Governance is >> simply dangerous and silly, because in no way is a big victory for two of >> the most important battles for the future of our knowledge societies, of our >> free societies. A rigid exam, or even an exam at first sight of the outcome >> document will show that it certainly fails to adopt the highest human rights >> standards. >> >> The other issue was participation. As you can see in the brilliant work by >> CIS India http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/index.html and the attached >> maps, the voices from the global south, especially the poorest countries >> from Africa and Latin America, where largely missing in the debates. It was >> a North lead debate. It was a highly specialised debate, but, paradoxically, >> with terrible flaws as there were Internet Governance experts, but, except >> for the very good contributions of privacy experts like Jacob Appelbaum and >> Copyright experts like Mishi, there was a vast lack of expertise, or at >> least no unity in key demands. >> >> So for me, in spite of the good faith of the Brazilians, any effort that >> will marry with the Net Mundial Final Document as such, as final, is flawed >> and has very little reform or even information potential for Civil Society. >> Because we will not be asking for and promoting the adoption of higher but >> lower standards, because the whole exercise lacks the voices and concerns >> for the very actors which will be the most affected by the adoption of such >> principles and roadmap as the one forward and because, again, very few of >> those who are not represented will be able to afford the time and resources >> that such initiative demands. So it will be again, a conversation among few. >> >> There is also the public v. private interest here, but that issue has been >> discussed extensively. My concern is basically the legitimacy we are giving >> to such disastrous outcome, reaching and promoting a new low. >> >> * This is a personal opinion and in no way reflects the opinion or position >> of the Web Foundation. >> >> Renata >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >> Journal wrote: >>> >>> Jeanette, >>> >>> Thanks for sharing Anja's skepticism. But Anja has expressed, more >>> importantly in my opinion, precise questions and given detailed information >>> that ignited her skepticism. Where are the answers to her questions? >>> Anriette has made suggestions: where are the reactions? Talking about >>> relevant actors: is WEF a relevant actor? WEF is a network of corporations, >>> big ones. Shouldn't civil society engage instead the smaller entrepreneurs, >>> who creates much more jobs that the WEF membership? What is the criteria to >>> say that it is worth to engage WEF rather than other groupings? WEF has a >>> high media added-value. I agree, but then just ask for a tribune in Davos, >>> to start with. >>> >>> You question the qualified and trustworthy candidates, fine, but you >>> totally ignore to answer the pending questions by many of us: what is this >>> all about? Is this process worth the effort and, if NUY lab is already >>> elaborating the written conclusions of the initiative, do we need to bother >>> to write the conclusions of it with any qualified and trustworthy candidate. >>> If so, you should revise your judgement and buy the argument (no copyright >>> on this!) that those who are willing to get involved are doing this for >>> career purposes. Some have already got their career boosted at ICANN and a >>> few other cool places, might feel that it would be smart for those without a >>> comfortable seat to join the carrousel of vanities. >>> >>> Thanks >>> JC >>> >>> >>> Le 20 nov. 2014 à 12:43, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : >>> >>> Hi all, I share Anja's skepticism but also Anriette's more principled >>> stance on participating in new processes. We need to communicate with >>> relevant actors in this field. Ultimately I think the pragmatic question is >>> if we find a sufficient number of qualified and trustworthy candidates who >>> are willing to contribute on our behalf in the NMI. Whether or not we have >>> experienced people who want to participate is a valuable indicator in >>> itself, don't you agree? (I don't buy the well-known argument that those who >>> are willing to get involved do this for career purposes.) >>> Jeanette >>> >>> On 20 November 2014 11:49:06 CET, Ian Peter >>> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Nnenna. >>> >>> >>> Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of >>> >>> opinion. >>> >>> >>> Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others. >>> >>> It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was >>> >>> reciprocated. >>> >>> >>> The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when >>> >>> someones personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that >>> >>> people stop expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It would >>> >>> be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And >>> >>> some voices have already been silenced on this issue. >>> >>> >>> We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can agree to >>> >>> respect differences of opinion. >>> >>> >>> Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building >>> >>> APC as " an international network and non profit organisation that >>> >>> wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve >>> >>> our lives and create a more just world". No, she is not abandoning the >>> >>> pursuit of social justice. >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Nnenna Nwakanma >>> >>> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM >>> >>> To: michael gurstein >>> >>> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits >>> >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in >>> >>> NETmundial Initiative - RFC >>> >>> >>> Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me >>> >>> the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is >>> >>> not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as >>> >>> abandoning the pursuit of social justice? >>> >>> >>> >>> If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson >>> >>> Mandela. And it is him who said: >>> >>> "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your >>> >>> enemy. Then he becomes your partner." >>> >>> >>> >>> I will rest my case for now >>> >>> >>> >>> Nnenna >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> So Anriette, I'm taking from your argument that because the NMI offers >>> >>> some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, >>> >>> you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of >>> >>> social justice. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> M >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>> >>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette >>> >>> Esterhuysen >>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM >>> >>> To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma >>> >>> Cc: Governance; Best Bits >>> >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in >>> >>> NETmundial Initiative - RFC >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear all >>> >>> >>> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our >>> >>> members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with >>> >>> project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on >>> >>> IG, so apologies for not participating. >>> >>> >>> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have >>> >>> also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while >>> >>> there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the >>> >>> process a try. >>> >>> >>> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, >>> >>> and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position. >>> >>> I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is >>> >>> legitimate and clear. >>> >>> >>> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how >>> >>> Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black >>> >>> and white'. >>> >>> >>> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we >>> >>> expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late >>> >>> August have actually been addressed. >>> >>> >>> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more >>> >>> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and >>> >>> its mechanisms. >>> >>> >>> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we >>> >>> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at >>> >>> national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to >>> >>> many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive >>> >>> democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through >>> >>> closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental >>> >>> processes and mechanisms. >>> >>> >>> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. >>> >>> >>> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the >>> >>> following: >>> >>> >>> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us >>> >>> - a limited timeframe >>> >>> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we >>> >>> continue or not >>> >>> >>> >>> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it >>> >>> closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to >>> >>> get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our >>> >>> particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the >>> >>> process and whether it meets the criteria important to us. >>> >>> >>> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns >>> >>> out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, and >>> >>> we can always withdraw. >>> >>> >>> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most >>> >>> progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights >>> >>> inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I >>> >>> think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the >>> >>> NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and >>> >>> implement, internet governance. >>> >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed >>> >>> some light on why their government has decided to support this >>> >>> initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I >>> >>> have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't >>> >>> help but wonder whether I'm missing something here. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour >>> >>> of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though >>> >>> as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations >>> >>> who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the >>> >>> wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian >>> >>> government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power >>> >>> centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given >>> >>> themselves some fixed seats. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee >>> >>> means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" >>> >>> clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others >>> >>> on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at >>> >>> NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would >>> >>> be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like >>> >>> the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp >>> >>> things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the >>> >>> structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that >>> >>> they would not have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would >>> >>> say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is something that a >>> >>> representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal >>> >>> conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, such as >>> >>> that map, might have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am >>> >>> not so certain) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring >>> >>> the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by >>> >>> Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're >>> >>> thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it >>> >>> forward. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks and best, >>> >>> >>> Anja >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >>> >>> >>> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil >>> >>> Society members here. >>> >>> >>> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to >>> >>> table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be >>> >>> withdrawn if XYZ is not met. >>> >>> >>> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I >>> >>> dont think we should miss out. >>> >>> >>> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate. >>> >>> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very >>> >>> interested in the NMI. >>> >>> >>> I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to >>> >>> participate but we cannot ask others not to. >>> >>> >>> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at >>> >>> the same time, saying that it is important for African S to >>> >>> participate. >>> >>> >>> All for now >>> >>> >>> Nnenna >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >>> >>> Journal wrote: >>> >>> >>> Jeremy, >>> >>> >>> Thanks for your email. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do >>> >>> not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to >>> >>> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real >>> >>> politics. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect >>> >>> and impact. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or >>> >>> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of >>> >>> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks >>> >>> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a >>> >>> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends >>> >>> with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious >>> >>> tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant >>> >>> for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the partition >>> >>> behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some >>> >>> troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a >>> >>> street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at stake >>> >>> such as >>> >>> >>> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US >>> >>> refused to discuss mass surveillance? >>> >>> >>> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing >>> >>> and growing? >>> >>> >>> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, >>> >>> insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of >>> >>> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao >>> >>> Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass >>> >>> surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us. >>> >>> >>> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU >>> >>> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that >>> >>> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links >>> >>> they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for >>> >>> CS. >>> >>> >>> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important >>> >>> than IANA for example? >>> >>> >>> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it >>> >>> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying >>> >>> the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help >>> >>> ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all >>> >>> the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their >>> >>> innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They >>> >>> also create more "values". >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless, >>> >>> CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the >>> >>> weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame >>> >>> JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a >>> >>> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist >>> >>> their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it >>> >>> not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go >>> >>> directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when >>> >>> launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep >>> >>> creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory >>> >>> boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. We >>> >>> are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate >>> >>> and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and >>> >>> corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we >>> >>> live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow >>> >>> citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do >>> >>> not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the >>> >>> realities that are taking away our rights. This is what should be done, >>> >>> now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about the >>> >>> comfortable sofas of the WEF. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. >>> >>> JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and >>> >>> more people. We should not care about that. We should care about having >>> >>> a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the >>> >>> current mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism >>> >>> when it comes to convene and consult many participants is certainly >>> >>> nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put in our >>> >>> mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on the >>> >>> public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had to go >>> >>> through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone nowhere. Only >>> >>> a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical issues doesn't >>> >>> equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead to some >>> >>> social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias >>> >>> is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no >>> >>> barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to >>> >>> avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales >>> >>> as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil >>> >>> society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that >>> >>> we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have >>> >>> hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the >>> >>> debate. That would be fair. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> JC >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >>> >>> Journal wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a >>> >>> personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping >>> >>> on civil society colleagues" you are referring to, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Within the next few days I'm going to write a separate blog post about >>> >>> this at igfwatch.org, because JNC's pathologies are off-topic for this >>> >>> list. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen >>> >>> to non JNC members: >>> >>> >>> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread >>> >>> Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew >>> >>> Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB >>> >>> Initiative) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some >>> >>> quarters to create a "UN Security Council" >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi >>> >>> Chehadé: ... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative >>> >>> as in your letter as "being 'the' mechanism for global [Internet] >>> >>> governance". >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC >>> >>> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to >>> >>> participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) >>> >>> of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of >>> >>> what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by >>> >>> different participants. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I've also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative >>> >>> (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial >>> >>> meeting. On this much we agree. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... >>> >>> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns >>> >>> seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the >>> >>> WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I >>> >>> certainly have >>> >>> >>> (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). >>> >>> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial >>> >>> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of >>> >>> other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their >>> >>> endorsement of the Initiative. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was >>> >>> sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off >>> >>> list, two emails in support, as well as one against). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now >>> >>> because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a >>> >>> flight a few hours later. But I write this brief response just because >>> >>> you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I'm not. >>> >>> Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions rather than >>> >>> me monopolising the conversation. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> 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 :: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>> >>> The Internet Democracy Project >>> >>> >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>> >>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________You >>> >>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To unsubscribe or change your settings, >>> >>> visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- `````````````````````````````````anriette esterhuysenexecutive >>> >>> directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755, >>> >>> melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Renata Avila >> Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want >> Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer >> +44 7477168593 (UK) >> >> World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington D.C. >> 20005 USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 20 12:55:26 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 15:55:26 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <546E2B0E.6020708@cafonso.ca> The ought to be some limits to having to read silly conclusions like this one. --c.a. On 11/20/14 08:13, michael gurstein wrote: > So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI offers > some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, > you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of social > justice. > > M > > *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Anriette > Esterhuysen > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM > *To:* Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma > *Cc:* Governance; Best Bits > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in > NETmundial Initiative - RFC > > Dear all > > I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our > members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with > project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on > IG, so apologies for not participating. > > Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have > also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there > are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process > a try. > > I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, > and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position. > I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is > legitimate and clear. > > I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how > Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and > white'. > > My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we > expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August > have actually been addressed. > > I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more > transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its > mechanisms. > > But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we > should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at > national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to > many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive > democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through > closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental > processes and mechanisms. > > I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. > > My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the > following: > > - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us > - a limited timeframe > - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we > continue or not > > > My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it > closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to > get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our > particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the > process and whether it meets the criteria important to us. > > This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns > out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, and > we can always withdraw. > > Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive, > to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive > processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I think that > backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial > would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement, > internet governance. > > Anriette > > On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Dear all, > > A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps > shed some light on why their government has decided to support this > initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very > helpful? I have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the > past, and can't help but wonder whether I'm missing something here. > > For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in > favour of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval > (though as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual > organisations who want to participate to continue doing so and > report back to the wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if > backed by the Brazilian government, is just not the place I want to > see emerge as a new power centre in Internet governance - even less > so as they have already given themselves some fixed seats. > > I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee > means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" > clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many > others on this list too) have already been contacted by the > Governance Lab at NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial > Solutions map that would be developed under the flag of the > NMI. It's difficult not to feel like the only thing we and others > would be doing is simply to rubberstamp things that would happen > anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the structure and the > initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that they would not > have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would say (that they > would go ahead without us anyway is something that a representative > from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal conversation in > October. Some of the individual initiative, such as that map, might > have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am not so certain) > > I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start > exploring the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work > suggested by Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what > they're thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and > take it forward. > > Thanks and best, > > Anja > > On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma > wrote: > > Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil > Society members here. > > My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to > table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be > withdrawn if XYZ is not met. > > I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, > I dont think we should miss out. > > NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to > participate. From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons > were already very interested in the NMI. > > I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to > participate but we cannot ask others not to. > > Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And > at the same time, saying that it is important for African S to > participate. > > All for now > > Nnenna > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The > Global Journal > wrote: > > Jeremy, > > Thanks for your email. > > Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we > both do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply > be wise to terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we > are in real politics. > > Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better > effect and impact. > > What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or > participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling > set of definitions, expectations and leading to an overall > confusion. It looks more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to > illegitimate grouping of a wealthy elite (the three players of > NMI have deep pockets, and friends with deeper pockets). I am > not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics behind all their > gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my > life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of > that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers > from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a > street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at > stake such as > > - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the > US refused to discuss mass surveillance? > > - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep > maturing and growing? > > - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, > insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't > encryption part of the mass surveillance issue? So then why to > please the US, in Sao Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really > go after it? Mass surveillance has nothing to do with IG they > told us. > > - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against > the EU decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in > my view, that search engines are touching at personal data, > beyond the simple links they assembled in their result pages? > This is a real good debate for CS. > > - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More > important than IANA for example? > > - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when > it comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN > is saying the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How > can we help ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS > minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am > positively impressed with their innovative abilities, much more > powerful than classical corps. They also create more "values". > > I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. > Nevertheless, CS should really act differently. The NMI story is > relevant of the weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and > this is not to blame JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis > wrote someone today. > > Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS > in a satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had > to twist their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, > to simply get it not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the > 'nice guys" not to go directly after the right ideas, proposals > and suggestions when launching an open, honest, transparent > debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their > committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is > critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. We are all > losing. Terrifying, I would say. > > So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a > debate and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, > citizens and corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the > growing asymmetry we live in since the mid-nineties? In the face > of History, and our fellow citizens, we are failing, because CS > is not united. To do that you do not need any WEF. You only need > to trust, share, and confront the realities that are taking away > our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of wasting > our time and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas > of the WEF. > > Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own > mandate. JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and > reaching more and more people. We should not care about that. We > should care about having a collective action that would oblige > governments, corps and the current mandarins to take more > progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes to convene > and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has often > been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS > narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on the > public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had > to go through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone > nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other few guys > technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It could > work, but then it would lead to some social disaster, a > disruption that would unleash violence. > > JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, > our bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no > corporation, no barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound > democratic concern (to avoid another asymmetric wars), and we > are ready to go into rationales as long as we are not > characterized as psychotics or lunatics. > > There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil > society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all > agree that we should pay more respect to each others, as long as > we do not have hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting > their money in the debate. That would be fair. > > JC > > Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : > > > > On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The > Global Journal > wrote: > > I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first > email. On a personal note, I would appreciate you to > elaborate about the "dumping on civil society colleagues" > you are referring to, > > Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post > about this at igfwatch.org , because JNC’s > pathologies are off-topic for this list. > > > > The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do > listen to non JNC members: > > - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread > Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". > (Ask Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of > what is the WIB Initiative) > > Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. > > > > - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some > quarters to create a "UN Security Council” > > A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? > > > > - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, > ... Fadi Chehadé: ... > > None of these statements support the characterisation of the > Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for > global [Internet] governance”. > > > > Based on these official and public statement, I can only read > JNC statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC > reluctance to participate or endorse such following-up > (hijacking might be to blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the > WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what was stated ultimately in > Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different participants. > > I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial > Initiative (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking > of the NETmundial meeting. On this much we agree. > > So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that > convoy ... should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges > the serious concerns seen in the making of, and in the > diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. > > Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part > personally I certainly have > (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). > What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the > NETmundial Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning > the motives of other civil society groups and falsely > attributing them with their endorsement of the Initiative. > > Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant > which was sent in a personal capacity (though I have > subsequently received, off list, two emails in support, as well > as one against). > > > > By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): > > I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now > because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding > a flight a few hours later. But I write this brief response > just because you suggested in most recent mail that I was > ignoring you - I’m not. Anyway, others can respond to the > balance of your questions rather than me monopolising the > conversation. > > -- > > 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 :: > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > > ````````````````````````````````` > > anriette esterhuysen > > executive director > > association for progressive communications > > po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa > > anriette at apc.org > > www.apc.org > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Nov 20 13:01:22 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 19:01:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <1486537673.7522.1416390999726.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f29> <4D5FE9B9-60E9-4AE4-BC19-5A72B08E78A6@orange.fr> Message-ID: <20141120190122.387c813e@quill> On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 17:23:08 +0100 "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > Yesterday in Geneva we heard a WEF presentation by a well seasoned > professional. It's crystal clear that WEF is a cleverly crafted lure > to spot SC weak links and inform their sponsors in big business.. One aspect of that presentation that was maybe not well understood by all was the use of the acronym “ODA”, which stands for “Official Development Assistance”, i.e. money coming from more prosperous countries which has the objective of assisting other countries with advancing their development. In my opinion, such money should be used for building infrastructure that is afterwards treated as a public good. By contrast, WEF is calling for all such money to go into private sector pockets to make the private sector build infrastructure that is then considered to be the private property of corporations. (This was not said explicitly, but it was implied in what the WEF representative -- the same person who also represents WEF in NMI -- said about “ODA”.) The relevance of this to the present thread is that it is one aspect of the kind of ideology which makes us in JNC want to keep our distance, and which makes us think that other civil society persons and civil society groups should take a similar stance. Greetings, Norbert co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 20 13:04:22 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 16:04:22 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <546E2D26.3040801@cafonso.ca> Where is it stated that the declaration of São Paulo (principles and roadmap of NETmundial) are "final"?? --c.a. On 11/20/14 10:47, Renata Avila wrote: > Dear all, > > I do not write often in this list, but, as I made it clear earlier at > the closing ceremony of Net Mundial Initiative, I am really concerned at > any effort adopting the Net Mundial ¨final¨ outcome as such, as final. > Mrs. Rousseff started her crusade as an effort to tackle or at least, > somehow, regulate the pervasive surveillance from a group of governments > against all citizens. The result was a monster, the process was flawed, > the language against massive surveillance was weak, the introduction the > language to please the copyright lobby really undermined solid, > multiyear efforts of the copyright reformists, too. Adopting such > document, which so far is just the result of an event outside the > regular events around Internet Governance is simply dangerous and silly, > because in no way is a big victory for two of the most important battles > for the future of our knowledge societies, of our free societies. A > rigid exam, or even an exam at first sight of the outcome document will > show that it certainly fails to adopt the highest human rights standards. > > The other issue was participation. As you can see in the brilliant work > by CIS India http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/index.html and the > attached maps, the voices from the global south, especially the poorest > countries from Africa and Latin America, where largely missing in the > debates. It was a North lead debate. It was a highly specialised debate, > but, paradoxically, with terrible flaws as there were Internet > Governance experts, but, except for the very good contributions of > privacy experts like Jacob Appelbaum and Copyright experts like Mishi, > there was a vast lack of expertise, or at least no unity in key demands. > > So for me, in spite of the good faith of the Brazilians, any effort that > will marry with the Net Mundial Final Document as such, as final, is > flawed and has very little reform or even information potential for > Civil Society. Because we will not be asking for and promoting the > adoption of higher but lower standards, because the whole exercise lacks > the voices and concerns for the very actors which will be the most > affected by the adoption of such principles and roadmap as the one > forward and because, again, very few of those who are not represented > will be able to afford the time and resources that such initiative > demands. So it will be again, a conversation among few. > > There is also the public v. private interest here, but that issue has > been discussed extensively. My concern is basically the legitimacy we > are giving to such disastrous outcome, reaching and promoting a new low. > > * This is a personal opinion and in no way reflects the opinion or > position of the Web Foundation. > > Renata > > > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global > Journal > wrote: > > Jeanette, > > Thanks for sharing Anja's skepticism. But Anja has expressed, more > importantly in my opinion, precise questions and given detailed > information that ignited her skepticism. Where are the answers to > her questions? Anriette has made suggestions: where are the > reactions? Talking about relevant actors: is WEF a relevant actor? > WEF is a network of corporations, big ones. Shouldn't civil society > engage instead the smaller entrepreneurs, who creates much more jobs > that the WEF membership? What is the criteria to say that it is > worth to engage WEF rather than other groupings? WEF has a high > media added-value. I agree, but then just ask for a tribune in > Davos, to start with. > > You question the qualified and trustworthy candidates, fine, but you > totally ignore to answer the pending questions by many of us: what > is this all about? Is this process worth the effort and, if NUY lab > is already elaborating the written conclusions of the initiative, do > we need to bother to write the conclusions of it with any qualified > and trustworthy candidate. If so, you should revise your judgement > and buy the argument (no copyright on this!) that those who are > willing to get involved are doing this for career purposes. Some > have already got their career boosted at ICANN and a few other cool > places, might feel that it would be smart for those without a > comfortable seat to join the carrousel of vanities. > > Thanks > JC > > > Le 20 nov. 2014 à 12:43, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : > >> Hi all, I share Anja's skepticism but also Anriette's more >> principled stance on participating in new processes. We need to >> communicate with relevant actors in this field. Ultimately I think >> the pragmatic question is if we find a sufficient number of >> qualified and trustworthy candidates who are willing to contribute >> on our behalf in the NMI. Whether or not we have experienced >> people who want to participate is a valuable indicator in itself, >> don't you agree? (I don't buy the well-known argument that those >> who are willing to get involved do this for career purposes.) >> Jeanette >> >> On 20 November 2014 11:49:06 CET, Ian Peter >> > wrote: >>> Thanks Nnenna. >>> >>> Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of >>> opinion. >>> >>> Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others. >>> It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was >>> reciprocated. >>> >>> The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when >>> someones personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that >>> people stop expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It >>> would >>> be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And >>> some voices have already been silenced on this issue. >>> >>> We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can >>> agree to >>> respect differences of opinion. >>> >>> Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building >>> APC as “ an international network and non profit organisation that >>> wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve >>> our lives and create a more just world”. No, she is not >>> abandoning the >>> pursuit of social justice. >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Nnenna Nwakanma >>> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM >>> To: michael gurstein >>> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in >>> NETmundial Initiative - RFC >>> >>> Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me >>> the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is >>> not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being >>> construed as >>> abandoning the pursuit of social justice? >>> >>> >>> If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was >>> Nelson >>> Mandela. And it is him who said: >>> "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with >>> your >>> enemy. Then he becomes your partner." >>> >>> >>> I will rest my case for now >>> >>> >>> Nnenna >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>> So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI >>> offers >>> some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, >>> you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of >>> social justice. >>> >>> >>> >>> M >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>> >>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>> ] On Behalf Of Anriette >>> Esterhuysen >>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM >>> To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma >>> Cc: Governance; Best Bits >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in >>> NETmundial Initiative - RFC >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear all >>> >>> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our >>> members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with >>> project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African >>> School on >>> IG, so apologies for not participating. >>> >>> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have >>> also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while >>> there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the >>> process a try. >>> >>> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, >>> and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger >>> position. >>> I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is >>> legitimate and clear. >>> >>> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently >>> from how >>> Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black >>> and white'. >>> >>> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we >>> expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late >>> August have actually been addressed. >>> >>> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more >>> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and >>> its mechanisms. >>> >>> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we >>> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental >>> spaces, at >>> national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty >>> naive to >>> many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive >>> democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through >>> closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental >>> processes and mechanisms. >>> >>> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. >>> >>> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the >>> following: >>> >>> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us >>> - a limited timeframe >>> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess >>> whether we >>> continue or not >>> >>> >>> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it >>> closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to >>> get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our >>> particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to >>> influence the >>> process and whether it meets the criteria important to us. >>> >>> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that >>> turns >>> out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth >>> taking, and >>> we can always withdraw. >>> >>> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most >>> progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human >>> rights >>> inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I >>> think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved >>> through the >>> NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and >>> implement, internet governance. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> >>> >>> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps >>> shed >>> some light on why their government has decided to support this >>> initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very >>> helpful? I >>> have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't >>> help but wonder whether I'm missing something here. >>> >>> >>> >>> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in >>> favour >>> of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though >>> as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations >>> who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the >>> wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the >>> Brazilian >>> government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power >>> centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already >>> given >>> themselves some fixed seats. >>> >>> >>> >>> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee >>> means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" >>> clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many >>> others >>> on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance >>> Lab at >>> NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that >>> would >>> be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to >>> feel like >>> the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp >>> things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them, >>> somehow the >>> structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy >>> that >>> they would not have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would >>> say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is something that a >>> representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal >>> conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, such as >>> that map, might have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am >>> not so certain) >>> >>> >>> >>> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring >>> the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by >>> Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're >>> thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it >>> forward. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks and best, >>> >>> Anja >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma >> > wrote: >>> >>> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil >>> Society members here. >>> >>> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to >>> table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be >>> withdrawn if XYZ is not met. >>> >>> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I >>> dont think we should miss out. >>> >>> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to >>> participate. >>> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very >>> interested in the NMI. >>> >>> I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to >>> participate but we cannot ask others not to. >>> >>> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. >>> And at >>> the same time, saying that it is important for African S to >>> participate. >>> >>> All for now >>> >>> Nnenna >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >>> Journal >> > wrote: >>> >>> Jeremy, >>> >>> Thanks for your email. >>> >>> >>> >>> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we >>> both do >>> not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to >>> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real >>> politics. >>> >>> >>> >>> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect >>> and impact. >>> >>> >>> >>> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or >>> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of >>> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It >>> looks >>> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a >>> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and >>> friends >>> with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious >>> tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant >>> for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the partition >>> behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some >>> troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a >>> street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at stake >>> such as >>> >>> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US >>> refused to discuss mass surveillance? >>> >>> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing >>> and growing? >>> >>> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, >>> insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption >>> part of >>> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao >>> Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass >>> surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us. >>> >>> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU >>> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my >>> view, that >>> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links >>> they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for >>> CS. >>> >>> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important >>> than IANA for example? >>> >>> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it >>> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is >>> saying >>> the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help >>> ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all >>> the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed with >>> their >>> innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They >>> also create more "values". >>> >>> >>> >>> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. >>> Nevertheless, >>> CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the >>> weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame >>> JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today. >>> >>> >>> >>> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a >>> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist >>> their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply >>> get it >>> not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go >>> directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when >>> launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep >>> creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory >>> boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all >>> cry. We >>> are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. >>> >>> >>> >>> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a >>> debate >>> and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and >>> corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing >>> asymmetry we >>> live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our >>> fellow >>> citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do >>> not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the >>> realities that are taking away our rights. This is what should be >>> done, >>> now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about the >>> comfortable sofas of the WEF. >>> >>> >>> >>> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. >>> JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and >>> more people. We should not care about that. We should care about >>> having >>> a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the >>> current mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism >>> when it comes to convene and consult many participants is certainly >>> nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put in our >>> mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least >>> on the >>> public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had to go >>> through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone nowhere. >>> Only >>> a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical issues doesn't >>> equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead >>> to some >>> social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence. >>> >>> >>> >>> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, >>> our bias >>> is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no >>> barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic >>> concern (to >>> avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into >>> rationales >>> as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics. >>> >>> >>> >>> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil >>> society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all >>> agree that >>> we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have >>> hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the >>> debate. That would be fair. >>> >>> >>> >>> JC >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >>> Journal >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. >>> On a >>> personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping >>> on civil society colleagues" you are referring to, >>> >>> >>> >>> Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post >>> about >>> this at igfwatch.org , because JNC’s >>> pathologies are off-topic for this >>> list. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen >>> to non JNC members: >>> >>> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread >>> Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". >>> (Ask Drew >>> Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB >>> Initiative) >>> >>> >>> >>> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some >>> quarters to create a "UN Security Council” >>> >>> >>> >>> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi >>> Chehadé: ... >>> >>> >>> >>> None of these statements support the characterisation of the >>> Initiative >>> as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global [Internet] >>> governance”. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC >>> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to >>> participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to >>> blunt) >>> of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of >>> what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by >>> different participants. >>> >>> >>> >>> I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative >>> (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial >>> meeting. On this much we agree. >>> >>> >>> >>> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... >>> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns >>> seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the >>> WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I >>> certainly have >>> (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). >>> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial >>> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of >>> other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their >>> endorsement of the Initiative. >>> >>> >>> >>> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant >>> which was >>> sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off >>> list, two emails in support, as well as one against). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): >>> >>> >>> >>> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now >>> because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a >>> flight a few hours later. But I write this brief response just >>> because >>> you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not. >>> Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions >>> rather than >>> me monopolising the conversation. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> 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 :: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>> The Internet Democracy Project >>> >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________You >>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To >>> unsubscribe or change >>> your settings, >>> visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> -- `````````````````````````````````anriette esterhuysenexecutive >>> directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755, >>> melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> -- >> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > *Renata Avila * > Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want > Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer > +44 7477168593 (UK) > > *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington > D.C. 20005 USA **| **www.webfoundation.org* > * | Twitter: @webfoundation* > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 13:22:29 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 10:22:29 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <546E2B0E.6020708@cafonso.ca> References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <546E2B0E.6020708@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <265501d004ee$f1fc8490$d5f58db0$@gmail.com> If you are committing yourself to a process which is being framed, driven and evidently stage managed by the 1% it is very hard, I believe, to draw any other conclusion. Or perhaps the 1%/WEF will suddenly discover a passion for social justice and we can all relax. M -----Original Message----- From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:55 AM To: michael gurstein; 'Anriette Esterhuysen'; 'Anja Kovacs'; 'Nnenna Nwakanma' Cc: 'Governance'; 'Best Bits' Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC The ought to be some limits to having to read silly conclusions like this one. --c.a. On 11/20/14 08:13, michael gurstein wrote: > So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI offers > some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, > you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of > social justice. > > M > > *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Anriette > Esterhuysen > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM > *To:* Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma > *Cc:* Governance; Best Bits > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in > NETmundial Initiative - RFC > > Dear all > > I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our > members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with > project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School > on IG, so apologies for not participating. > > Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have > also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while > there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the > process a try. > > I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, > and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position. > I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is > legitimate and clear. > > I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how > Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black > and white'. > > My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we > expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late > August have actually been addressed. > > I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more > transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and > its mechanisms. > > But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we > should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at > national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to > many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive > democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through > closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental > processes and mechanisms. > > I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. > > My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the > following: > > - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us > - a limited timeframe > - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether > we continue or not > > > My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it > closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to > get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our > particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence > the process and whether it meets the criteria important to us. > > This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns > out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, > and we can always withdraw. > > Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most > progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human > rights inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. > I think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through > the NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, > and implement, internet governance. > > Anriette > > On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Dear all, > > A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps > shed some light on why their government has decided to support this > initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very > helpful? I have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the > past, and can't help but wonder whether I'm missing something here. > > For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in > favour of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval > (though as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual > organisations who want to participate to continue doing so and > report back to the wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if > backed by the Brazilian government, is just not the place I want to > see emerge as a new power centre in Internet governance - even less > so as they have already given themselves some fixed seats. > > I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee > means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" > clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many > others on this list too) have already been contacted by the > Governance Lab at NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial > Solutions map that would be developed under the flag of the > NMI. It's difficult not to feel like the only thing we and others > would be doing is simply to rubberstamp things that would happen > anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the structure and the > initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that they would not > have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would say (that they > would go ahead without us anyway is something that a representative > from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal conversation in > October. Some of the individual initiative, such as that map, might > have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am not so > certain) > > I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start > exploring the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work > suggested by Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what > they're thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and > take it forward. > > Thanks and best, > > Anja > > On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma > wrote: > > Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil > Society members here. > > My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to > table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be > withdrawn if XYZ is not met. > > I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, > I dont think we should miss out. > > NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to > participate. From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons > were already very interested in the NMI. > > I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to > participate but we cannot ask others not to. > > Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And > at the same time, saying that it is important for African S to > participate. > > All for now > > Nnenna > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The > Global Journal > wrote: > > Jeremy, > > Thanks for your email. > > Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we > both do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply > be wise to terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we > are in real politics. > > Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better > effect and impact. > > What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or > participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling > set of definitions, expectations and leading to an overall > confusion. It looks more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to > illegitimate grouping of a wealthy elite (the three players of > NMI have deep pockets, and friends with deeper pockets). I am > not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics behind all their > gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my > life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of > that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers > from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a > street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at > stake such as > > - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the > US refused to discuss mass surveillance? > > - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep > maturing and growing? > > - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, > insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't > encryption part of the mass surveillance issue? So then why to > please the US, in Sao Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really > go after it? Mass surveillance has nothing to do with IG they > told us. > > - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against > the EU decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in > my view, that search engines are touching at personal data, > beyond the simple links they assembled in their result pages? > This is a real good debate for CS. > > - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More > important than IANA for example? > > - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when > it comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN > is saying the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How > can we help ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS > minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am > positively impressed with their innovative abilities, much more > powerful than classical corps. They also create more "values". > > I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. > Nevertheless, CS should really act differently. The NMI story is > relevant of the weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and > this is not to blame JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis > wrote someone today. > > Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS > in a satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had > to twist their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, > to simply get it not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the > 'nice guys" not to go directly after the right ideas, proposals > and suggestions when launching an open, honest, transparent > debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their > committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is > critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. We are all > losing. Terrifying, I would say. > > So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a > debate and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, > citizens and corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the > growing asymmetry we live in since the mid-nineties? In the face > of History, and our fellow citizens, we are failing, because CS > is not united. To do that you do not need any WEF. You only need > to trust, share, and confront the realities that are taking away > our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of wasting > our time and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas > of the WEF. > > Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own > mandate. JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and > reaching more and more people. We should not care about that. We > should care about having a collective action that would oblige > governments, corps and the current mandarins to take more > progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes to convene > and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has often > been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS > narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on the > public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had > to go through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone > nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other few guys > technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It could > work, but then it would lead to some social disaster, a > disruption that would unleash violence. > > JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, > our bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no > corporation, no barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound > democratic concern (to avoid another asymmetric wars), and we > are ready to go into rationales as long as we are not > characterized as psychotics or lunatics. > > There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil > society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all > agree that we should pay more respect to each others, as long as > we do not have hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting > their money in the debate. That would be fair. > > JC > > Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : > > > > On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The > Global Journal > wrote: > > I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first > email. On a personal note, I would appreciate you to > elaborate about the "dumping on civil society colleagues" > you are referring to, > > Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post > about this at igfwatch.org , because JNC’s > pathologies are off-topic for this list. > > > > The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do > listen to non JNC members: > > - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread > Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". > (Ask Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of > what is the WIB Initiative) > > Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. > > > > - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some > quarters to create a "UN Security Council” > > A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? > > > > - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, > ... Fadi Chehadé: ... > > None of these statements support the characterisation of the > Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for > global [Internet] governance”. > > > > Based on these official and public statement, I can only read > JNC statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC > reluctance to participate or endorse such following-up > (hijacking might be to blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the > WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what was stated ultimately in > Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different participants. > > I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial > Initiative (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking > of the NETmundial meeting. On this much we agree. > > So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that > convoy ... should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges > the serious concerns seen in the making of, and in the > diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. > > Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part > personally I certainly have > (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). > What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the > NETmundial Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning > the motives of other civil society groups and falsely > attributing them with their endorsement of the Initiative. > > Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant > which was sent in a personal capacity (though I have > subsequently received, off list, two emails in support, as well > as one against). > > > > By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): > > I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now > because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding > a flight a few hours later. But I write this brief response > just because you suggested in most recent mail that I was > ignoring you - I’m not. Anyway, others can respond to the > balance of your questions rather than me monopolising the > conversation. > > -- > > 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 :: > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > > ````````````````````````````````` > > anriette esterhuysen > > executive director > > association for progressive communications > > po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa > > anriette at apc.org > > www.apc.org > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Thu Nov 20 13:34:02 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 19:34:02 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <546E2D26.3040801@cafonso.ca> References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> <546E2D26.3040801@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <41F67CCE-5AB8-4341-BDE7-30A6F05FC243@theglobaljournal.net> Is this all what you read/oppose in Renata's email? There ought to be no limit to sincerely try to understand what someone else is formulating rather brilliantly and so rightfully. So tell us more about what is silly here? Le 20 nov. 2014 à 19:04, Carlos Afonso a écrit : > Where is it stated that the declaration of São Paulo (principles and roadmap of NETmundial) are "final"?? > > --c.a. > > On 11/20/14 10:47, Renata Avila wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> I do not write often in this list, but, as I made it clear earlier at >> the closing ceremony of Net Mundial Initiative, I am really concerned at >> any effort adopting the Net Mundial ¨final¨ outcome as such, as final. >> Mrs. Rousseff started her crusade as an effort to tackle or at least, >> somehow, regulate the pervasive surveillance from a group of governments >> against all citizens. The result was a monster, the process was flawed, >> the language against massive surveillance was weak, the introduction the >> language to please the copyright lobby really undermined solid, >> multiyear efforts of the copyright reformists, too. Adopting such >> document, which so far is just the result of an event outside the >> regular events around Internet Governance is simply dangerous and silly, >> because in no way is a big victory for two of the most important battles >> for the future of our knowledge societies, of our free societies. A >> rigid exam, or even an exam at first sight of the outcome document will >> show that it certainly fails to adopt the highest human rights standards. >> >> The other issue was participation. As you can see in the brilliant work >> by CIS India http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/index.html and the >> attached maps, the voices from the global south, especially the poorest >> countries from Africa and Latin America, where largely missing in the >> debates. It was a North lead debate. It was a highly specialised debate, >> but, paradoxically, with terrible flaws as there were Internet >> Governance experts, but, except for the very good contributions of >> privacy experts like Jacob Appelbaum and Copyright experts like Mishi, >> there was a vast lack of expertise, or at least no unity in key demands. >> >> So for me, in spite of the good faith of the Brazilians, any effort that >> will marry with the Net Mundial Final Document as such, as final, is >> flawed and has very little reform or even information potential for >> Civil Society. Because we will not be asking for and promoting the >> adoption of higher but lower standards, because the whole exercise lacks >> the voices and concerns for the very actors which will be the most >> affected by the adoption of such principles and roadmap as the one >> forward and because, again, very few of those who are not represented >> will be able to afford the time and resources that such initiative >> demands. So it will be again, a conversation among few. >> >> There is also the public v. private interest here, but that issue has >> been discussed extensively. My concern is basically the legitimacy we >> are giving to such disastrous outcome, reaching and promoting a new low. >> >> * This is a personal opinion and in no way reflects the opinion or >> position of the Web Foundation. >> >> Renata >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >> Journal > > wrote: >> >> Jeanette, >> >> Thanks for sharing Anja's skepticism. But Anja has expressed, more >> importantly in my opinion, precise questions and given detailed >> information that ignited her skepticism. Where are the answers to >> her questions? Anriette has made suggestions: where are the >> reactions? Talking about relevant actors: is WEF a relevant actor? >> WEF is a network of corporations, big ones. Shouldn't civil society >> engage instead the smaller entrepreneurs, who creates much more jobs >> that the WEF membership? What is the criteria to say that it is >> worth to engage WEF rather than other groupings? WEF has a high >> media added-value. I agree, but then just ask for a tribune in >> Davos, to start with. >> >> You question the qualified and trustworthy candidates, fine, but you >> totally ignore to answer the pending questions by many of us: what >> is this all about? Is this process worth the effort and, if NUY lab >> is already elaborating the written conclusions of the initiative, do >> we need to bother to write the conclusions of it with any qualified >> and trustworthy candidate. If so, you should revise your judgement >> and buy the argument (no copyright on this!) that those who are >> willing to get involved are doing this for career purposes. Some >> have already got their career boosted at ICANN and a few other cool >> places, might feel that it would be smart for those without a >> comfortable seat to join the carrousel of vanities. >> >> Thanks >> JC >> >> >> Le 20 nov. 2014 à 12:43, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : >> >>> Hi all, I share Anja's skepticism but also Anriette's more >>> principled stance on participating in new processes. We need to >>> communicate with relevant actors in this field. Ultimately I think >>> the pragmatic question is if we find a sufficient number of >>> qualified and trustworthy candidates who are willing to contribute >>> on our behalf in the NMI. Whether or not we have experienced >>> people who want to participate is a valuable indicator in itself, >>> don't you agree? (I don't buy the well-known argument that those >>> who are willing to get involved do this for career purposes.) >>> Jeanette >>> >>> On 20 November 2014 11:49:06 CET, Ian Peter >>> > wrote: >>>> Thanks Nnenna. >>>> >>>> Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of >>>> opinion. >>>> >>>> Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others. >>>> It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was >>>> reciprocated. >>>> >>>> The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when >>>> someones personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that >>>> people stop expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It >>>> would >>>> be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And >>>> some voices have already been silenced on this issue. >>>> >>>> We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can >>>> agree to >>>> respect differences of opinion. >>>> >>>> Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building >>>> APC as “ an international network and non profit organisation that >>>> wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve >>>> our lives and create a more just world”. No, she is not >>>> abandoning the >>>> pursuit of social justice. >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Nnenna Nwakanma >>>> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM >>>> To: michael gurstein >>>> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits >>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in >>>> NETmundial Initiative - RFC >>>> >>>> Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me >>>> the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is >>>> not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being >>>> construed as >>>> abandoning the pursuit of social justice? >>>> >>>> >>>> If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was >>>> Nelson >>>> Mandela. And it is him who said: >>>> "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with >>>> your >>>> enemy. Then he becomes your partner." >>>> >>>> >>>> I will rest my case for now >>>> >>>> >>>> Nnenna >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein >>>> > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI >>>> offers >>>> some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, >>>> you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of >>>> social justice. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> M >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>> >>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>> ] On Behalf Of Anriette >>>> Esterhuysen >>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM >>>> To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma >>>> Cc: Governance; Best Bits >>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in >>>> NETmundial Initiative - RFC >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our >>>> members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with >>>> project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African >>>> School on >>>> IG, so apologies for not participating. >>>> >>>> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have >>>> also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while >>>> there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the >>>> process a try. >>>> >>>> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, >>>> and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger >>>> position. >>>> I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is >>>> legitimate and clear. >>>> >>>> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently >>>> from how >>>> Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black >>>> and white'. >>>> >>>> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we >>>> expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late >>>> August have actually been addressed. >>>> >>>> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more >>>> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and >>>> its mechanisms. >>>> >>>> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we >>>> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental >>>> spaces, at >>>> national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty >>>> naive to >>>> many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive >>>> democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through >>>> closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental >>>> processes and mechanisms. >>>> >>>> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. >>>> >>>> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the >>>> following: >>>> >>>> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us >>>> - a limited timeframe >>>> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess >>>> whether we >>>> continue or not >>>> >>>> >>>> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it >>>> closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to >>>> get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our >>>> particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to >>>> influence the >>>> process and whether it meets the criteria important to us. >>>> >>>> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that >>>> turns >>>> out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth >>>> taking, and >>>> we can always withdraw. >>>> >>>> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most >>>> progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human >>>> rights >>>> inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I >>>> think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved >>>> through the >>>> NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and >>>> implement, internet governance. >>>> >>>> Anriette >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps >>>> shed >>>> some light on why their government has decided to support this >>>> initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very >>>> helpful? I >>>> have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't >>>> help but wonder whether I'm missing something here. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in >>>> favour >>>> of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though >>>> as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations >>>> who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the >>>> wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the >>>> Brazilian >>>> government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power >>>> centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already >>>> given >>>> themselves some fixed seats. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee >>>> means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" >>>> clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many >>>> others >>>> on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance >>>> Lab at >>>> NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that >>>> would >>>> be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to >>>> feel like >>>> the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp >>>> things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them, >>>> somehow the >>>> structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy >>>> that >>>> they would not have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would >>>> say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is something that a >>>> representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal >>>> conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, such as >>>> that map, might have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am >>>> not so certain) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring >>>> the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by >>>> Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're >>>> thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it >>>> forward. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks and best, >>>> >>>> Anja >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil >>>> Society members here. >>>> >>>> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to >>>> table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be >>>> withdrawn if XYZ is not met. >>>> >>>> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I >>>> dont think we should miss out. >>>> >>>> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to >>>> participate. >>>> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very >>>> interested in the NMI. >>>> >>>> I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to >>>> participate but we cannot ask others not to. >>>> >>>> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. >>>> And at >>>> the same time, saying that it is important for African S to >>>> participate. >>>> >>>> All for now >>>> >>>> Nnenna >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >>>> Journal >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Jeremy, >>>> >>>> Thanks for your email. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we >>>> both do >>>> not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to >>>> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real >>>> politics. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect >>>> and impact. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or >>>> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of >>>> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It >>>> looks >>>> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a >>>> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and >>>> friends >>>> with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious >>>> tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant >>>> for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the partition >>>> behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some >>>> troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a >>>> street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at stake >>>> such as >>>> >>>> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US >>>> refused to discuss mass surveillance? >>>> >>>> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing >>>> and growing? >>>> >>>> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, >>>> insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption >>>> part of >>>> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao >>>> Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass >>>> surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us. >>>> >>>> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU >>>> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my >>>> view, that >>>> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links >>>> they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for >>>> CS. >>>> >>>> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important >>>> than IANA for example? >>>> >>>> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it >>>> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is >>>> saying >>>> the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help >>>> ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all >>>> the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed with >>>> their >>>> innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They >>>> also create more "values". >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. >>>> Nevertheless, >>>> CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the >>>> weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame >>>> JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a >>>> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist >>>> their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply >>>> get it >>>> not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go >>>> directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when >>>> launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep >>>> creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory >>>> boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all >>>> cry. We >>>> are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a >>>> debate >>>> and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and >>>> corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing >>>> asymmetry we >>>> live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our >>>> fellow >>>> citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do >>>> not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the >>>> realities that are taking away our rights. This is what should be >>>> done, >>>> now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about the >>>> comfortable sofas of the WEF. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. >>>> JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and >>>> more people. We should not care about that. We should care about >>>> having >>>> a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the >>>> current mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism >>>> when it comes to convene and consult many participants is certainly >>>> nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put in our >>>> mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least >>>> on the >>>> public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had to go >>>> through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone nowhere. >>>> Only >>>> a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical issues doesn't >>>> equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead >>>> to some >>>> social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, >>>> our bias >>>> is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no >>>> barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic >>>> concern (to >>>> avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into >>>> rationales >>>> as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil >>>> society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all >>>> agree that >>>> we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have >>>> hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the >>>> debate. That would be fair. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> JC >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >>>> Journal >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. >>>> On a >>>> personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping >>>> on civil society colleagues" you are referring to, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post >>>> about >>>> this at igfwatch.org , because JNC’s >>>> pathologies are off-topic for this >>>> list. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen >>>> to non JNC members: >>>> >>>> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread >>>> Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". >>>> (Ask Drew >>>> Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB >>>> Initiative) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some >>>> quarters to create a "UN Security Council” >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi >>>> Chehadé: ... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> None of these statements support the characterisation of the >>>> Initiative >>>> as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global [Internet] >>>> governance”. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC >>>> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to >>>> participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to >>>> blunt) >>>> of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of >>>> what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by >>>> different participants. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative >>>> (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial >>>> meeting. On this much we agree. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... >>>> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns >>>> seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the >>>> WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I >>>> certainly have >>>> (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). >>>> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial >>>> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of >>>> other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their >>>> endorsement of the Initiative. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant >>>> which was >>>> sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off >>>> list, two emails in support, as well as one against). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now >>>> because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a >>>> flight a few hours later. But I write this brief response just >>>> because >>>> you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not. >>>> Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions >>>> rather than >>>> me monopolising the conversation. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> 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 :: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>> The Internet Democracy Project >>>> >>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________You >>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To >>>> unsubscribe or change >>>> your settings, >>>> visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- `````````````````````````````````anriette esterhuysenexecutive >>>> directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755, >>>> melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> -- >>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Renata Avila * >> Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want >> Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer >> +44 7477168593 (UK) >> >> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington >> D.C. 20005 USA **| **www.webfoundation.org* >> * | Twitter: @webfoundation* >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 20 13:56:43 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 16:56:43 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> <546E2D26.3040801@cafonso.ca> <41F67CCE-5AB8-4341-BDE7-30A6F05FC243@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <546E396B.60504@cafonso.ca> > Carlos, can you share information about plans to reopen the text for > discussion? With pleasure: it is called NETmundial Initiative. fraternal regards --c.a. On 11/20/14 16:47, Renata Avila wrote: > ​Dear all, > > Happy to clarify my email, if it was not clear enough. I am also > including the maps I did not include in my previous email. > > Again, there are no indications of opening and continuing revising the > draft document. If there is a process to reopen the document and improve > it, please indicate it. I know Net Mundial was considered by many a huge > achievement and consensus. For the three reasons I explained before > > 1. Weak anti surveillance language > 2. Inclusion of copyright provisions > 3. Lack of South input, from all sectors > > I have always considered quite incomplete. If it is an open discussion > and there will be an engaging process to "fix it" then it is a different > conversation. > > Carlos, can you share information about plans to reopen the text for > discussion? > > With respect, > > Renata​ > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global > Journal > wrote: > > Is this all what you read/oppose in Renata's email? There ought to > be no limit to sincerely try to understand what someone else is > formulating rather brilliantly and so rightfully. So tell us more > about what is silly here? > > > Le 20 nov. 2014 à 19:04, Carlos Afonso a écrit : > > > Where is it stated that the declaration of São Paulo (principles > and roadmap of NETmundial) are "final"?? > > > > --c.a. > > > > On 11/20/14 10:47, Renata Avila wrote: > >> Dear all, > >> > >> I do not write often in this list, but, as I made it clear > earlier at > >> the closing ceremony of Net Mundial Initiative, I am really > concerned at > >> any effort adopting the Net Mundial ¨final¨ outcome as such, as > final. > >> Mrs. Rousseff started her crusade as an effort to tackle or at > least, > >> somehow, regulate the pervasive surveillance from a group of > governments > >> against all citizens. The result was a monster, the process was > flawed, > >> the language against massive surveillance was weak, the > introduction the > >> language to please the copyright lobby really undermined solid, > >> multiyear efforts of the copyright reformists, too. Adopting such > >> document, which so far is just the result of an event outside the > >> regular events around Internet Governance is simply dangerous > and silly, > >> because in no way is a big victory for two of the most important > battles > >> for the future of our knowledge societies, of our free societies. A > >> rigid exam, or even an exam at first sight of the outcome > document will > >> show that it certainly fails to adopt the highest human rights > standards. > >> > >> The other issue was participation. As you can see in the > brilliant work > >> by CIS India http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/index.html > and the > >> attached maps, the voices from the global south, especially the > poorest > >> countries from Africa and Latin America, where largely missing > in the > >> debates. It was a North lead debate. It was a highly specialised > debate, > >> but, paradoxically, with terrible flaws as there were Internet > >> Governance experts, but, except for the very good contributions of > >> privacy experts like Jacob Appelbaum and Copyright experts like > Mishi, > >> there was a vast lack of expertise, or at least no unity in key > demands. > >> > >> So for me, in spite of the good faith of the Brazilians, any > effort that > >> will marry with the Net Mundial Final Document as such, as final, is > >> flawed and has very little reform or even information potential for > >> Civil Society. Because we will not be asking for and promoting the > >> adoption of higher but lower standards, because the whole > exercise lacks > >> the voices and concerns for the very actors which will be the most > >> affected by the adoption of such principles and roadmap as the one > >> forward and because, again, very few of those who are not > represented > >> will be able to afford the time and resources that such initiative > >> demands. So it will be again, a conversation among few. > >> > >> There is also the public v. private interest here, but that > issue has > >> been discussed extensively. My concern is basically the > legitimacy we > >> are giving to such disastrous outcome, reaching and promoting a > new low. > >> > >> * This is a personal opinion and in no way reflects the opinion or > >> position of the Web Foundation. > >> > >> Renata > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The > Global > >> Journal > >> >> wrote: > >> > >> Jeanette, > >> > >> Thanks for sharing Anja's skepticism. But Anja has expressed, > more > >> importantly in my opinion, precise questions and given detailed > >> information that ignited her skepticism. Where are the answers to > >> her questions? Anriette has made suggestions: where are the > >> reactions? Talking about relevant actors: is WEF a relevant > actor? > >> WEF is a network of corporations, big ones. Shouldn't civil > society > >> engage instead the smaller entrepreneurs, who creates much > more jobs > >> that the WEF membership? What is the criteria to say that it is > >> worth to engage WEF rather than other groupings? WEF has a high > >> media added-value. I agree, but then just ask for a tribune in > >> Davos, to start with. > >> > >> You question the qualified and trustworthy candidates, fine, > but you > >> totally ignore to answer the pending questions by many of us: > what > >> is this all about? Is this process worth the effort and, if > NUY lab > >> is already elaborating the written conclusions of the > initiative, do > >> we need to bother to write the conclusions of it with any > qualified > >> and trustworthy candidate. If so, you should revise your > judgement > >> and buy the argument (no copyright on this!) that those who are > >> willing to get involved are doing this for career purposes. Some > >> have already got their career boosted at ICANN and a few > other cool > >> places, might feel that it would be smart for those without a > >> comfortable seat to join the carrousel of vanities. > >> > >> Thanks > >> JC > >> > >> > >> Le 20 nov. 2014 à 12:43, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : > >> > >>> Hi all, I share Anja's skepticism but also Anriette's more > >>> principled stance on participating in new processes. We need to > >>> communicate with relevant actors in this field. Ultimately I > think > >>> the pragmatic question is if we find a sufficient number of > >>> qualified and trustworthy candidates who are willing to > contribute > >>> on our behalf in the NMI. Whether or not we have experienced > >>> people who want to participate is a valuable indicator in > itself, > >>> don't you agree? (I don't buy the well-known argument that those > >>> who are willing to get involved do this for career purposes.) > >>> Jeanette > >>> > >>> On 20 November 2014 11:49:06 CET, Ian Peter > >>> > >> wrote: > >>>> Thanks Nnenna. > >>>> > >>>> Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of > >>>> opinion. > >>>> > >>>> Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have > many others. > >>>> It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was > >>>> reciprocated. > >>>> > >>>> The most substantial side effect for civil society > discourse when > >>>> someones personal opinion is attacked rather than respected > is that > >>>> people stop expressing themselves for fear of being > attacked. It > >>>> would > >>>> be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing points of > view. And > >>>> some voices have already been silenced on this issue. > >>>> > >>>> We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can > >>>> agree to > >>>> respect differences of opinion. > >>>> > >>>> Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to > building > >>>> APC as “ an international network and non profit > organisation that > >>>> wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet > to improve > >>>> our lives and create a more just world”. No, she is not > >>>> abandoning the > >>>> pursuit of social justice. > >>>> > >>>> Ian Peter > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> From: Nnenna Nwakanma > >>>> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM > >>>> To: michael gurstein > >>>> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits > >>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in > >>>> NETmundial Initiative - RFC > >>>> > >>>> Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning > to amaze me > >>>> the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a > shot, it is > >>>> not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being > >>>> construed as > >>>> abandoning the pursuit of social justice? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> If there was a human being who fought for social justice, > it was > >>>> Nelson > >>>> Mandela. And it is him who said: > >>>> "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to > work with > >>>> your > >>>> enemy. Then he becomes your partner." > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I will rest my case for now > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Nnenna > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein > >>>> > >> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI > >>>> offers > >>>> some possibility, however remote for the advancement of > human rights, > >>>> you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the > pursuit of > >>>> social justice. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> M > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > >>>> > > >>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > >>>> >] On Behalf Of Anriette > >>>> Esterhuysen > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM > >>>> To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma > >>>> Cc: Governance; Best Bits > >>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in > >>>> NETmundial Initiative - RFC > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Dear all > >>>> > >>>> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is > consulting our > >>>> members about it at present. We have been really busy in > APC with > >>>> project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African > >>>> School on > >>>> IG, so apologies for not participating. > >>>> > >>>> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian > colleagues. I have > >>>> also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense > that while > >>>> there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth > giving the > >>>> process a try. > >>>> > >>>> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was > excellent, > >>>> and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger > >>>> position. > >>>> I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the > process is > >>>> legitimate and clear. > >>>> > >>>> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently > >>>> from how > >>>> Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite > as 'black > >>>> and white'. > >>>> > >>>> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we > >>>> expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch > in late > >>>> August have actually been addressed. > >>>> > >>>> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked > more > >>>> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the > process and > >>>> its mechanisms. > >>>> > >>>> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I > believe we > >>>> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental > >>>> spaces, at > >>>> national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty > >>>> naive to > >>>> many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to > inclusive > >>>> democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation > is through > >>>> closer connections between multistakeholder and > intergovernmental > >>>> processes and mechanisms. > >>>> > >>>> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. > >>>> > >>>> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI > with the > >>>> following: > >>>> > >>>> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us > >>>> - a limited timeframe > >>>> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess > >>>> whether we > >>>> continue or not > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to > link it > >>>> closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits > meeting to > >>>> get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess > whether our > >>>> particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to > >>>> influence the > >>>> process and whether it meets the criteria important to us. > >>>> > >>>> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process > that > >>>> turns > >>>> out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth > >>>> taking, and > >>>> we can always withdraw. > >>>> > >>>> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most > >>>> progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect > human > >>>> rights > >>>> inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling > out. I > >>>> think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved > >>>> through the > >>>> NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think > about, and > >>>> implement, internet governance. > >>>> > >>>> Anriette > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Dear all, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could > perhaps > >>>> shed > >>>> some light on why their government has decided to support this > >>>> initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very > >>>> helpful? I > >>>> have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, > and can't > >>>> help but wonder whether I'm missing something here. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in > >>>> favour > >>>> of civil society networks giving this their stamp of > approval (though > >>>> as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual > organisations > >>>> who want to participate to continue doing so and report > back to the > >>>> wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the > >>>> Brazilian > >>>> government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a > new power > >>>> centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have > already > >>>> given > >>>> themselves some fixed seats. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and > committee > >>>> means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would > "foster" > >>>> clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many > >>>> others > >>>> on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance > >>>> Lab at > >>>> NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map > that > >>>> would > >>>> be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to > >>>> feel like > >>>> the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to > rubberstamp > >>>> things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them, > >>>> somehow the > >>>> structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a > legitimacy > >>>> that > >>>> they would not have had without. An unwise use of our > power, I would > >>>> say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is > something that a > >>>> representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an > informal > >>>> conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, > such as > >>>> that map, might have value, but about the structure as a > whole, I am > >>>> not so certain) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start > exploring > >>>> the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work > suggested by > >>>> Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're > >>>> thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves > and take it > >>>> forward. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Thanks and best, > >>>> > >>>> Anja > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma > > >>>> >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially > African Civil > >>>> Society members here. > >>>> > >>>> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is > okay to > >>>> table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation > may be > >>>> withdrawn if XYZ is not met. > >>>> > >>>> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in > Africa, I > >>>> dont think we should miss out. > >>>> > >>>> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to > >>>> participate. > >>>> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were > already very > >>>> interested in the NMI. > >>>> > >>>> I see it is okay if one network or list or platform > decides NOT to > >>>> participate but we cannot ask others not to. > >>>> > >>>> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating > people. > >>>> And at > >>>> the same time, saying that it is important for African S to > >>>> participate. > >>>> > >>>> All for now > >>>> > >>>> Nnenna > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I > The Global > >>>> Journal > >>>> >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Jeremy, > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for your email. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we > >>>> both do > >>>> not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be > wise to > >>>> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real > >>>> politics. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of > better effect > >>>> and impact. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or > >>>> participants is that the initiative has more than a > troubling set of > >>>> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall > confusion. It > >>>> looks > >>>> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate > grouping of a > >>>> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and > >>>> friends > >>>> with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the > obvious > >>>> tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a > consultant > >>>> for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the > partition > >>>> behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always > call some > >>>> troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke > to cross a > >>>> street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what > is at stake > >>>> such as > >>>> > >>>> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that > the US > >>>> refused to discuss mass surveillance? > >>>> > >>>> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep > maturing > >>>> and growing? > >>>> > >>>> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, > >>>> insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption > >>>> part of > >>>> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, > in Sao > >>>> Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass > >>>> surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us. > >>>> > >>>> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour > against the EU > >>>> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my > >>>> view, that > >>>> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the > simple links > >>>> they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good > debate for > >>>> CS. > >>>> > >>>> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More > important > >>>> than IANA for example? > >>>> > >>>> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas > when it > >>>> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is > >>>> saying > >>>> the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can > we help > >>>> ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? > Looking at all > >>>> the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively > impressed with > >>>> their > >>>> innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical > corps. They > >>>> also create more "values". > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. > >>>> Nevertheless, > >>>> CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant > of the > >>>> weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not > to blame > >>>> JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN > handle CS in a > >>>> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had > to twist > >>>> their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to > simply > >>>> get it > >>>> not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" > not to go > >>>> directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when > >>>> launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they > keep > >>>> creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, > advisory > >>>> boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all > >>>> cry. We > >>>> are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a > >>>> debate > >>>> and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, > citizens and > >>>> corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing > >>>> asymmetry we > >>>> live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our > >>>> fellow > >>>> citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do > that you do > >>>> not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and > confront the > >>>> realities that are taking away our rights. This is what > should be > >>>> done, > >>>> now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate > about the > >>>> comfortable sofas of the WEF. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own > mandate. > >>>> JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and > reaching more and > >>>> more people. We should not care about that. We should care > about > >>>> having > >>>> a collective action that would oblige governments, corps > and the > >>>> current mandarins to take more progressive steps. > Multistakeholderism > >>>> when it comes to convene and consult many participants is > certainly > >>>> nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put > in our > >>>> mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at > least > >>>> on the > >>>> public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders > had to go > >>>> through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone > nowhere. > >>>> Only > >>>> a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical > issues doesn't > >>>> equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead > >>>> to some > >>>> social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, > >>>> our bias > >>>> is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no > corporation, no > >>>> barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic > >>>> concern (to > >>>> avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into > >>>> rationales > >>>> as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as > civil > >>>> society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all > >>>> agree that > >>>> we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do > not have > >>>> hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money > in the > >>>> debate. That would be fair. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> JC > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The > Global > >>>> Journal > >>>> >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first > email. > >>>> On a > >>>> personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about > the "dumping > >>>> on civil society colleagues" you are referring to, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog > post > >>>> about > >>>> this at igfwatch.org > , because JNC’s > >>>> pathologies are off-topic for this > >>>> list. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I > do listen > >>>> to non JNC members: > >>>> > >>>> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread > >>>> Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". > >>>> (Ask Drew > >>>> Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what > is the WIB > >>>> Initiative) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some > >>>> quarters to create a "UN Security Council” > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, > ... Fadi > >>>> Chehadé: ... > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> None of these statements support the characterisation of the > >>>> Initiative > >>>> as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global > [Internet] > >>>> governance”. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Based on these official and public statement, I can only > read JNC > >>>> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC > reluctance to > >>>> participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to > >>>> blunt) > >>>> of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are > owners of > >>>> what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due > reserves by > >>>> different participants. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial > Initiative > >>>> (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the > NETmundial > >>>> meeting. On this much we agree. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that > convoy ... > >>>> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious > concerns > >>>> seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives > presented by the > >>>> WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part > personally I > >>>> certainly have > >>>> > (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). > >>>> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the > NETmundial > >>>> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the > motives of > >>>> other civil society groups and falsely attributing them > with their > >>>> endorsement of the Initiative. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant > >>>> which was > >>>> sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently > received, off > >>>> list, two emails in support, as well as one against). > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the > BestBits list): > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail > right now > >>>> because I am speaking at a conference today and will be > boarding a > >>>> flight a few hours later. But I write this brief response just > >>>> because > >>>> you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - > I’m not. > >>>> Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions > >>>> rather than > >>>> me monopolising the conversation. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> 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 :: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > >. > >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > >. > >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs > >>>> The Internet Democracy Project > >>>> > >>>> +91 9899028053 > | @anjakovacs > >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in > > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________You > >>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To > > >>>> > unsubscribe or change > >>>> your settings, > >>>> visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- `````````````````````````````````anriette > esterhuysenexecutive > >>>> directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755, > >>>> melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org > > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > >. > >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my > brevity. > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > >. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> *Renata Avila * > >> Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want > >> Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer > >> +44 7477168593 (UK) > >> > >> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, > Washington > >> D.C. 20005 USA **| **www.webfoundation.org > * > >> * | Twitter: @webfoundation* > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > *Renata Avila * > Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want > Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer > +44 7477168593 (UK) > > *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington > D.C. 20005 USA **| **www.webfoundation.org* > * | Twitter: @webfoundation* > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Nov 20 14:08:19 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 20:08:19 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <546E396B.60504@cafonso.ca> References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> <546E2D26.3040801@cafonso.ca> <41F67CCE-5AB8-4341-BDE7-30A6F05FC243@theglobaljournal.net> <546E396B.60504@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <20141120200819.0facf3fe@quill> On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 16:56:43 -0200 Carlos Afonso wrote: > > Carlos, can you share information about plans to reopen the text > > for discussion? > > With pleasure: it is called NETmundial Initiative. Is it somehow / somewhere officially stated that the NMI plan includes reopening the São Paulo text for discussion? If so, I'd appreciate a pointer, as I would have in that case missed something of importance (even though I have been trying to observe this closely.) Greetings, Norbert > On 11/20/14 16:47, Renata Avila wrote: > > ​Dear all, > > > > Happy to clarify my email, if it was not clear enough. I am also > > including the maps I did not include in my previous email. > > > > Again, there are no indications of opening and continuing revising > > the draft document. If there is a process to reopen the document > > and improve it, please indicate it. I know Net Mundial was > > considered by many a huge achievement and consensus. For the three > > reasons I explained before > > > > 1. Weak anti surveillance language > > 2. Inclusion of copyright provisions > > 3. Lack of South input, from all sectors > > > > I have always considered quite incomplete. If it is an open > > discussion and there will be an engaging process to "fix it" then > > it is a different conversation. > > > > Carlos, can you share information about plans to reopen the text for > > discussion? > > > > With respect, > > > > Renata​ > > > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The > > Global Journal > > wrote: > > > > Is this all what you read/oppose in Renata's email? There ought > > to be no limit to sincerely try to understand what someone else is > > formulating rather brilliantly and so rightfully. So tell us > > more about what is silly here? > > > > > > Le 20 nov. 2014 à 19:04, Carlos Afonso a écrit : > > > > > Where is it stated that the declaration of São Paulo > > > (principles > > and roadmap of NETmundial) are "final"?? > > > > > > --c.a. > > > > > > On 11/20/14 10:47, Renata Avila wrote: > > >> Dear all, > > >> > > >> I do not write often in this list, but, as I made it clear > > earlier at > > >> the closing ceremony of Net Mundial Initiative, I am really > > concerned at > > >> any effort adopting the Net Mundial ¨final¨ outcome as > > >> such, as > > final. > > >> Mrs. Rousseff started her crusade as an effort to tackle or > > >> at > > least, > > >> somehow, regulate the pervasive surveillance from a group of > > governments > > >> against all citizens. The result was a monster, the process > > >> was > > flawed, > > >> the language against massive surveillance was weak, the > > introduction the > > >> language to please the copyright lobby really undermined > > >> solid, multiyear efforts of the copyright reformists, too. > > >> Adopting such document, which so far is just the result of > > >> an event outside the regular events around Internet > > >> Governance is simply dangerous > > and silly, > > >> because in no way is a big victory for two of the most > > >> important > > battles > > >> for the future of our knowledge societies, of our free > > >> societies. A rigid exam, or even an exam at first sight of > > >> the outcome > > document will > > >> show that it certainly fails to adopt the highest human > > >> rights > > standards. > > >> > > >> The other issue was participation. As you can see in the > > brilliant work > > >> by CIS India > > >> http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/index.html > > and the > > >> attached maps, the voices from the global south, especially > > >> the > > poorest > > >> countries from Africa and Latin America, where largely > > >> missing > > in the > > >> debates. It was a North lead debate. It was a highly > > >> specialised > > debate, > > >> but, paradoxically, with terrible flaws as there were > > >> Internet Governance experts, but, except for the very good > > >> contributions of privacy experts like Jacob Appelbaum and > > >> Copyright experts like > > Mishi, > > >> there was a vast lack of expertise, or at least no unity in > > >> key > > demands. > > >> > > >> So for me, in spite of the good faith of the Brazilians, any > > effort that > > >> will marry with the Net Mundial Final Document as such, as > > >> final, is flawed and has very little reform or even > > >> information potential for Civil Society. Because we will > > >> not be asking for and promoting the adoption of higher but > > >> lower standards, because the whole > > exercise lacks > > >> the voices and concerns for the very actors which will be > > >> the most affected by the adoption of such principles and > > >> roadmap as the one forward and because, again, very few of > > >> those who are not > > represented > > >> will be able to afford the time and resources that such > > >> initiative demands. So it will be again, a conversation > > >> among few. > > >> > > >> There is also the public v. private interest here, but that > > issue has > > >> been discussed extensively. My concern is basically the > > legitimacy we > > >> are giving to such disastrous outcome, reaching and > > >> promoting a > > new low. > > >> > > >> * This is a personal opinion and in no way reflects the > > >> opinion or position of the Web Foundation. > > >> > > >> Renata > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I > > >> The > > Global > > >> Journal > > > >> > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> Jeanette, > > >> > > >> Thanks for sharing Anja's skepticism. But Anja has > > >> expressed, > > more > > >> importantly in my opinion, precise questions and given > > >> detailed information that ignited her skepticism. Where are > > >> the answers to her questions? Anriette has made > > >> suggestions: where are the reactions? Talking about > > >> relevant actors: is WEF a relevant > > actor? > > >> WEF is a network of corporations, big ones. Shouldn't > > >> civil > > society > > >> engage instead the smaller entrepreneurs, who creates > > >> much > > more jobs > > >> that the WEF membership? What is the criteria to say > > >> that it is worth to engage WEF rather than other groupings? > > >> WEF has a high media added-value. I agree, but then just > > >> ask for a tribune in Davos, to start with. > > >> > > >> You question the qualified and trustworthy candidates, > > >> fine, > > but you > > >> totally ignore to answer the pending questions by many > > >> of us: > > what > > >> is this all about? Is this process worth the effort and, > > >> if > > NUY lab > > >> is already elaborating the written conclusions of the > > initiative, do > > >> we need to bother to write the conclusions of it with any > > qualified > > >> and trustworthy candidate. If so, you should revise your > > judgement > > >> and buy the argument (no copyright on this!) that those > > >> who are willing to get involved are doing this for career > > >> purposes. Some have already got their career boosted at > > >> ICANN and a few > > other cool > > >> places, might feel that it would be smart for those > > >> without a comfortable seat to join the carrousel of > > >> vanities. > > >> > > >> Thanks > > >> JC > > >> > > >> > > >> Le 20 nov. 2014 à 12:43, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : > > >> > > >>> Hi all, I share Anja's skepticism but also Anriette's > > >>> more principled stance on participating in new processes. > > >>> We need to communicate with relevant actors in this field. > > >>> Ultimately I > > think > > >>> the pragmatic question is if we find a sufficient > > >>> number of qualified and trustworthy candidates who are > > >>> willing to > > contribute > > >>> on our behalf in the NMI. Whether or not we have > > >>> experienced people who want to participate is a valuable > > >>> indicator in > > itself, > > >>> don't you agree? (I don't buy the well-known argument > > >>> that those who are willing to get involved do this for > > >>> career purposes.) Jeanette > > >>> > > >>> On 20 November 2014 11:49:06 CET, Ian Peter > > >>> > > > >> wrote: > > >>>> Thanks Nnenna. > > >>>> > > >>>> Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate > > >>>> differences of opinion. > > >>>> > > >>>> Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as > > >>>> have > > many others. > > >>>> It would be good if this respect for differing > > >>>> opinions was reciprocated. > > >>>> > > >>>> The most substantial side effect for civil society > > discourse when > > >>>> someones personal opinion is attacked rather than > > >>>> respected > > is that > > >>>> people stop expressing themselves for fear of being > > attacked. It > > >>>> would > > >>>> be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing > > >>>> points of > > view. And > > >>>> some voices have already been silenced on this issue. > > >>>> > > >>>> We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps > > >>>> we can agree to > > >>>> respect differences of opinion. > > >>>> > > >>>> Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her > > >>>> life to > > building > > >>>> APC as “ an international network and non profit > > organisation that > > >>>> wants everyone to have access to a free and open > > >>>> internet > > to improve > > >>>> our lives and create a more just world”. No, she is not > > >>>> abandoning the > > >>>> pursuit of social justice. > > >>>> > > >>>> Ian Peter > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> From: Nnenna Nwakanma > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM > > >>>> To: michael gurstein > > >>>> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; > > >>>> Best Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to > > >>>> participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC > > >>>> > > >>>> Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is > > >>>> beginning > > to amaze me > > >>>> the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give > > >>>> something a > > shot, it is > > >>>> not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is > > >>>> being construed as > > >>>> abandoning the pursuit of social justice? > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> If there was a human being who fought for social > > >>>> justice, > > it was > > >>>> Nelson > > >>>> Mandela. And it is him who said: > > >>>> "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to > > work with > > >>>> your > > >>>> enemy. Then he becomes your partner." > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> I will rest my case for now > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Nnenna > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein > > >>>> > > >> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that > > >>>> because the NMI offers > > >>>> some possibility, however remote for the advancement of > > human rights, > > >>>> you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the > > pursuit of > > >>>> social justice. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> M > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > > > >>>> > >] On Behalf Of > > Anriette > > >>>> Esterhuysen > > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM > > >>>> To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma > > >>>> Cc: Governance; Best Bits > > >>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to > > >>>> participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Dear all > > >>>> > > >>>> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is > > consulting our > > >>>> members about it at present. We have been really busy > > >>>> in > > APC with > > >>>> project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the > > >>>> African School on > > >>>> IG, so apologies for not participating. > > >>>> > > >>>> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian > > colleagues. I have > > >>>> also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense > > that while > > >>>> there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is > > >>>> worth > > giving the > > >>>> process a try. > > >>>> > > >>>> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote > > >>>> was > > excellent, > > >>>> and I feel that having them in place has put us in a > > >>>> stronger position. > > >>>> I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the > > process is > > >>>> legitimate and clear. > > >>>> > > >>>> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit > > >>>> differently from how > > >>>> Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not > > >>>> quite > > as 'black > > >>>> and white'. > > >>>> > > >>>> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong > > >>>> concerns we expressed at the time of the NETmundial > > >>>> Initiative Launch > > in late > > >>>> August have actually been addressed. > > >>>> > > >>>> I don't particularly like the process... I would have > > >>>> liked > > more > > >>>> transparency and consultation around the redesign of > > >>>> the > > process and > > >>>> its mechanisms. > > >>>> > > >>>> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, > > >>>> and I > > believe we > > >>>> should do our best to take it forward, to > > >>>> intergovernmental spaces, at > > >>>> national level, and through the IGF. This might sound > > >>>> pretty naive to > > >>>> many but I still believe that the only sustainable > > >>>> path to > > inclusive > > >>>> democratic multistakeholder internet policy and > > >>>> regulation > > is through > > >>>> closer connections between multistakeholder and > > intergovernmental > > >>>> processes and mechanisms. > > >>>> > > >>>> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be > > >>>> fast. > > >>>> > > >>>> My view would be that civil society participates in > > >>>> the NMI > > with the > > >>>> following: > > >>>> > > >>>> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important > > >>>> to us > > >>>> - a limited timeframe > > >>>> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we > > >>>> assess whether we > > >>>> continue or not > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> My proposal would be try and make the process work, > > >>>> and to > > link it > > >>>> closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best > > >>>> Bits > > meeting to > > >>>> get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess > > whether our > > >>>> particpation has had impact, whether we have been able > > >>>> to influence the > > >>>> process and whether it meets the criteria important to > > >>>> us. > > >>>> > > >>>> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a > > >>>> process > > that > > >>>> turns > > >>>> out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk > > >>>> worth taking, and > > >>>> we can always withdraw. > > >>>> > > >>>> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the > > >>>> most progressive, to date, agreement on principles that > > >>>> respect > > human > > >>>> rights > > >>>> inclusive processes in internet governance simply > > >>>> fizzling > > out. I > > >>>> think that backtracking in that way on what we all > > >>>> achieved through the > > >>>> NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we > > >>>> think > > about, and > > >>>> implement, internet governance. > > >>>> > > >>>> Anriette > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Dear all, > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists > > >>>> could > > perhaps > > >>>> shed > > >>>> some light on why their government has decided to > > >>>> support this initiative, and how they see it, that could > > >>>> possibly be very helpful? I > > >>>> have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the > > >>>> past, > > and can't > > >>>> help but wonder whether I'm missing something here. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am > > >>>> still not in favour > > >>>> of civil society networks giving this their stamp of > > approval (though > > >>>> as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual > > organisations > > >>>> who want to participate to continue doing so and report > > back to the > > >>>> wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed > > >>>> by the Brazilian > > >>>> government, is just not the place I want to see emerge > > >>>> as a > > new power > > >>>> centre in Internet governance - even less so as they > > >>>> have > > already > > >>>> given > > >>>> themselves some fixed seats. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> I've in particular been wondering what this selection > > >>>> and > > committee > > >>>> means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would > > "foster" > > >>>> clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I > > >>>> know many others > > >>>> on this list too) have already been contacted by the > > >>>> Governance Lab at > > >>>> NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial > > >>>> Solutions map > > that > > >>>> would > > >>>> be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult > > >>>> not to feel like > > >>>> the only thing we and others would be doing is simply > > >>>> to > > rubberstamp > > >>>> things that would happen anyway - but because we okay > > >>>> them, somehow the > > >>>> structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a > > legitimacy > > >>>> that > > >>>> they would not have had without. An unwise use of our > > power, I would > > >>>> say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is > > something that a > > >>>> representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in > > >>>> an > > informal > > >>>> conversation in October. Some of the individual > > >>>> initiative, > > such as > > >>>> that map, might have value, but about the structure as > > >>>> a > > whole, I am > > >>>> not so certain) > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead > > >>>> start > > exploring > > >>>> the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work > > suggested by > > >>>> Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about > > >>>> what they're thinking, and how we could operationalize > > >>>> this ourselves > > and take it > > >>>> forward. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks and best, > > >>>> > > >>>> Anja > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma > > > > >>>> > >>>> >> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially > > African Civil > > >>>> Society members here. > > >>>> > > >>>> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. > > >>>> It is > > okay to > > >>>> table our "fears" and let NMI know that our > > >>>> participation > > may be > > >>>> withdrawn if XYZ is not met. > > >>>> > > >>>> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", > > >>>> but in > > Africa, I > > >>>> dont think we should miss out. > > >>>> > > >>>> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants > > >>>> to participate. > > >>>> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons > > >>>> were > > already very > > >>>> interested in the NMI. > > >>>> > > >>>> I see it is okay if one network or list or platform > > decides NOT to > > >>>> participate but we cannot ask others not to. > > >>>> > > >>>> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists > > >>>> nominating > > people. > > >>>> And at > > >>>> the same time, saying that it is important for African > > >>>> S to participate. > > >>>> > > >>>> All for now > > >>>> > > >>>> Nnenna > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe > > >>>> NOTHIAS I > > The Global > > >>>> Journal > > > >>>> > >> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Jeremy, > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks for your email. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, > > >>>> but as we both do > > >>>> not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would > > >>>> simply be > > wise to > > >>>> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we > > >>>> are in real politics. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of > > better effect > > >>>> and impact. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of > > >>>> observers or participants is that the initiative has more > > >>>> than a > > troubling set of > > >>>> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall > > confusion. It > > >>>> looks > > >>>> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate > > grouping of a > > >>>> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep > > >>>> pockets, and friends > > >>>> with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify > > >>>> the > > obvious > > >>>> tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo > > >>>> as a > > consultant > > >>>> for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read > > >>>> the > > partition > > >>>> behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you > > >>>> always > > call some > > >>>> troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of > > >>>> smoke > > to cross a > > >>>> street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on > > >>>> what > > is at stake > > >>>> such as > > >>>> > > >>>> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact > > >>>> that > > the US > > >>>> refused to discuss mass surveillance? > > >>>> > > >>>> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to > > >>>> keep > > maturing > > >>>> and growing? > > >>>> > > >>>> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on > > >>>> this topic, insufficiently at the center of the IG > > >>>> debate? Isn't encryption part of > > >>>> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the > > >>>> US, > > in Sao > > >>>> Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after > > >>>> it? Mass surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told > > >>>> us. > > >>>> > > >>>> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour > > against the EU > > >>>> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly > > >>>> in my view, that > > >>>> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond > > >>>> the > > simple links > > >>>> they assembled in their result pages? This is a real > > >>>> good > > debate for > > >>>> CS. > > >>>> > > >>>> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? > > >>>> More > > important > > >>>> than IANA for example? > > >>>> > > >>>> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative > > >>>> ideas > > when it > > >>>> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the > > >>>> ICANN is saying > > >>>> the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How > > >>>> can > > we help > > >>>> ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? > > Looking at all > > >>>> the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively > > impressed with > > >>>> their > > >>>> innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical > > corps. They > > >>>> also create more "values". > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in > > >>>> mind. Nevertheless, > > >>>> CS should really act differently. The NMI story is > > >>>> relevant > > of the > > >>>> weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this > > >>>> is not > > to blame > > >>>> JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone > > >>>> today. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN > > handle CS in a > > >>>> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We > > >>>> had > > to twist > > >>>> their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, > > >>>> to > > simply > > >>>> get it > > >>>> not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice > > >>>> guys" > > not to go > > >>>> directly after the right ideas, proposals and > > >>>> suggestions when launching an open, honest, transparent > > >>>> debate? Instead they > > keep > > >>>> creating distrust with their committees, high level > > >>>> panel, > > advisory > > >>>> boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! > > >>>> should we all cry. We > > >>>> are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to > > >>>> meet, have a debate > > >>>> and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, > > citizens and > > >>>> corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the > > >>>> growing asymmetry we > > >>>> live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of > > >>>> History, and our fellow > > >>>> citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To > > >>>> do > > that you do > > >>>> not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and > > confront the > > >>>> realities that are taking away our rights. This is what > > should be > > >>>> done, > > >>>> now, instead of wasting our time and little money to > > >>>> debate > > about the > > >>>> comfortable sofas of the WEF. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to > > >>>> its own > > mandate. > > >>>> JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and > > reaching more and > > >>>> more people. We should not care about that. We should > > >>>> care > > about > > >>>> having > > >>>> a collective action that would oblige governments, > > >>>> corps > > and the > > >>>> current mandarins to take more progressive steps. > > Multistakeholderism > > >>>> when it comes to convene and consult many participants > > >>>> is > > certainly > > >>>> nice. This has often been done, long before we began > > >>>> to put > > in our > > >>>> mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make > > >>>> decisions at > > least > > >>>> on the > > >>>> public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the > > >>>> coders > > had to go > > >>>> through MS to make decision, they would have simply > > >>>> gone > > nowhere. > > >>>> Only > > >>>> a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical > > issues doesn't > > >>>> equate a political model. It could work, but then it > > >>>> would lead to some > > >>>> social disaster, a disruption that would unleash > > >>>> violence. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor > > >>>> enough, our bias > > >>>> is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no > > corporation, no > > >>>> barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound > > >>>> democratic concern (to > > >>>> avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go > > >>>> into rationales > > >>>> as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or > > >>>> lunatics. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> There is no way that we can really have a strong > > >>>> impact as > > civil > > >>>> society participants if we do not go after unity. And > > >>>> we all agree that > > >>>> we should pay more respect to each others, as long as > > >>>> we do > > not have > > >>>> hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their > > >>>> money > > in the > > >>>> debate. That would be fair. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> JC > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I > > >>>> The > > Global > > >>>> Journal > > > >>>> > >> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your > > >>>> first > > email. > > >>>> On a > > >>>> personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate > > >>>> about > > the "dumping > > >>>> on civil society colleagues" you are referring to, > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate > > >>>> blog > > post > > >>>> about > > >>>> this at igfwatch.org > > , because JNC’s > > >>>> pathologies are off-topic for this > > >>>> list. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. > > >>>> If I > > do listen > > >>>> to non JNC members: > > >>>> > > >>>> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants > > >>>> to spread Internet Governance more evenly across the > > >>>> developing world". (Ask Drew > > >>>> Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of > > >>>> what > > is the WIB > > >>>> Initiative) > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts > > >>>> from some quarters to create a "UN Security Council” > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard > > >>>> Samans, > > ... Fadi > > >>>> Chehadé: ... > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> None of these statements support the characterisation > > >>>> of the Initiative > > >>>> as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global > > [Internet] > > >>>> governance”. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Based on these official and public statement, I can > > >>>> only > > read JNC > > >>>> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC > > reluctance to > > >>>> participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking > > >>>> might be to blunt) > > >>>> of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or > > >>>> CGIbr are > > owners of > > >>>> what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due > > reserves by > > >>>> different participants. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the > > >>>> NETmundial > > Initiative > > >>>> (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of > > >>>> the > > NETmundial > > >>>> meeting. On this much we agree. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that > > convoy ... > > >>>> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the > > >>>> serious > > concerns > > >>>> seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives > > presented by the > > >>>> WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part > > personally I > > >>>> certainly have > > >>>> > > (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). > > >>>> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes > > >>>> the > > NETmundial > > >>>> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the > > motives of > > >>>> other civil society groups and falsely attributing them > > with their > > >>>> endorsement of the Initiative. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed > > >>>> my rant which was > > >>>> sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently > > received, off > > >>>> list, two emails in support, as well as one against). > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the > > BestBits list): > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail > > right now > > >>>> because I am speaking at a conference today and will be > > boarding a > > >>>> flight a few hours later. But I write this brief > > >>>> response just because > > >>>> you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring > > >>>> you - > > I’m not. > > >>>> Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your > > >>>> questions rather than > > >>>> me monopolising the conversation. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> > > >>>> 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 :: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > ____________________________________________________________ > > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the > > >>>> list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > > > > >. > > >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the > > >>>> list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > > > > >. > > >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> > > >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs > > >>>> The Internet Democracy Project > > >>>> > > >>>> +91 9899028053 > > | @anjakovacs > > >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in > > > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> ____________________________________________________________You > > >>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To > > > > >>>> > > unsubscribe or change > > >>>> your settings, > > >>>> visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> -- `````````````````````````````````anriette > > esterhuysenexecutive > > >>>> directorassociation for progressive communicationspo > > >>>> box 29755, melville, 2109, south > > >>>> africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > > > > >. > > >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please > > >>> excuse my > > brevity. > > >>> > > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > > > > > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > >>> > > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > >>> > > >>> Translate this email: > > >>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >> > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > >> > > > >. > > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> *Renata Avila * > > >> Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want > > >> Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer > > >> +44 7477168593 (UK) > > >> > > >> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, > > Washington > > >> D.C. 20005 USA **| **www.webfoundation.org > > * > > >> * | Twitter: @webfoundation* > > >> > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > >> . To unsubscribe or > > >> change your settings, visit: > > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > > . To unsubscribe or > > > change your settings, visit: > > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > > > > -- > > *Renata Avila * > > Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want > > Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer > > +44 7477168593 (UK) > > > > *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, > > Washington D.C. 20005 USA **| **www.webfoundation.org* > > * | Twitter: @webfoundation* > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Nov 20 14:29:58 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 17:29:58 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <20141120200819.0facf3fe@quill> References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> <546E2D26.3040801@cafonso.ca> <41F67CCE-5AB8-4341-BDE7-30A6F05FC243@theglobaljournal.net> <546E396B.60504@cafonso.ca> <20141120200819.0facf3fe@quill> Message-ID: <546E4136.9000800@cafonso.ca> I think I did not make myself clear. The Declaration itself points to several instances of further discussion (e.g, net neutrality), and basically is a set of general guidelines around which a significant level of consensus was obtained. Once we start debating it with a view of going deeper into the roadmap, several new issues will arise and old ones will as well need to be dealt with. I do not think it is wise to treat the discussion on how to advance on the Declaration by doing like some of the so-called "like-minded countries" who treat the Tunis Agenda as an inmutable bible. It is clear that, if we wish to go ahead, many issues need to be clarified, improved, revisited etc. Sorry, I thought this was really obvious. frt rgds --c.a. On 11/20/14 17:08, Norbert Bollow wrote: > On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 16:56:43 -0200 > Carlos Afonso wrote: > >> > Carlos, can you share information about plans to reopen the text >> > for discussion? >> >> With pleasure: it is called NETmundial Initiative. > > Is it somehow / somewhere officially stated that the NMI plan includes > reopening the São Paulo text for discussion? > > If so, I'd appreciate a pointer, as I would have in that case missed > something of importance (even though I have been trying to observe this > closely.) > > Greetings, > Norbert > > >> On 11/20/14 16:47, Renata Avila wrote: >>> ​Dear all, >>> >>> Happy to clarify my email, if it was not clear enough. I am also >>> including the maps I did not include in my previous email. >>> >>> Again, there are no indications of opening and continuing revising >>> the draft document. If there is a process to reopen the document >>> and improve it, please indicate it. I know Net Mundial was >>> considered by many a huge achievement and consensus. For the three >>> reasons I explained before >>> >>> 1. Weak anti surveillance language >>> 2. Inclusion of copyright provisions >>> 3. Lack of South input, from all sectors >>> >>> I have always considered quite incomplete. If it is an open >>> discussion and there will be an engaging process to "fix it" then >>> it is a different conversation. >>> >>> Carlos, can you share information about plans to reopen the text for >>> discussion? >>> >>> With respect, >>> >>> Renata​ >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The >>> Global Journal >> > wrote: >>> >>> Is this all what you read/oppose in Renata's email? There ought >>> to be no limit to sincerely try to understand what someone else is >>> formulating rather brilliantly and so rightfully. So tell us >>> more about what is silly here? >>> >>> >>> Le 20 nov. 2014 à 19:04, Carlos Afonso a écrit : >>> >>> > Where is it stated that the declaration of São Paulo >>> > (principles >>> and roadmap of NETmundial) are "final"?? >>> > >>> > --c.a. >>> > >>> > On 11/20/14 10:47, Renata Avila wrote: >>> >> Dear all, >>> >> >>> >> I do not write often in this list, but, as I made it clear >>> earlier at >>> >> the closing ceremony of Net Mundial Initiative, I am really >>> concerned at >>> >> any effort adopting the Net Mundial ¨final¨ outcome as >>> >> such, as >>> final. >>> >> Mrs. Rousseff started her crusade as an effort to tackle or >>> >> at >>> least, >>> >> somehow, regulate the pervasive surveillance from a group of >>> governments >>> >> against all citizens. The result was a monster, the process >>> >> was >>> flawed, >>> >> the language against massive surveillance was weak, the >>> introduction the >>> >> language to please the copyright lobby really undermined >>> >> solid, multiyear efforts of the copyright reformists, too. >>> >> Adopting such document, which so far is just the result of >>> >> an event outside the regular events around Internet >>> >> Governance is simply dangerous >>> and silly, >>> >> because in no way is a big victory for two of the most >>> >> important >>> battles >>> >> for the future of our knowledge societies, of our free >>> >> societies. A rigid exam, or even an exam at first sight of >>> >> the outcome >>> document will >>> >> show that it certainly fails to adopt the highest human >>> >> rights >>> standards. >>> >> >>> >> The other issue was participation. As you can see in the >>> brilliant work >>> >> by CIS India >>> >> http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/index.html >>> and the >>> >> attached maps, the voices from the global south, especially >>> >> the >>> poorest >>> >> countries from Africa and Latin America, where largely >>> >> missing >>> in the >>> >> debates. It was a North lead debate. It was a highly >>> >> specialised >>> debate, >>> >> but, paradoxically, with terrible flaws as there were >>> >> Internet Governance experts, but, except for the very good >>> >> contributions of privacy experts like Jacob Appelbaum and >>> >> Copyright experts like >>> Mishi, >>> >> there was a vast lack of expertise, or at least no unity in >>> >> key >>> demands. >>> >> >>> >> So for me, in spite of the good faith of the Brazilians, any >>> effort that >>> >> will marry with the Net Mundial Final Document as such, as >>> >> final, is flawed and has very little reform or even >>> >> information potential for Civil Society. Because we will >>> >> not be asking for and promoting the adoption of higher but >>> >> lower standards, because the whole >>> exercise lacks >>> >> the voices and concerns for the very actors which will be >>> >> the most affected by the adoption of such principles and >>> >> roadmap as the one forward and because, again, very few of >>> >> those who are not >>> represented >>> >> will be able to afford the time and resources that such >>> >> initiative demands. So it will be again, a conversation >>> >> among few. >>> >> >>> >> There is also the public v. private interest here, but that >>> issue has >>> >> been discussed extensively. My concern is basically the >>> legitimacy we >>> >> are giving to such disastrous outcome, reaching and >>> >> promoting a >>> new low. >>> >> >>> >> * This is a personal opinion and in no way reflects the >>> >> opinion or position of the Web Foundation. >>> >> >>> >> Renata >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I >>> >> The >>> Global >>> >> Journal >> >>> >> >> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Jeanette, >>> >> >>> >> Thanks for sharing Anja's skepticism. But Anja has >>> >> expressed, >>> more >>> >> importantly in my opinion, precise questions and given >>> >> detailed information that ignited her skepticism. Where are >>> >> the answers to her questions? Anriette has made >>> >> suggestions: where are the reactions? Talking about >>> >> relevant actors: is WEF a relevant >>> actor? >>> >> WEF is a network of corporations, big ones. Shouldn't >>> >> civil >>> society >>> >> engage instead the smaller entrepreneurs, who creates >>> >> much >>> more jobs >>> >> that the WEF membership? What is the criteria to say >>> >> that it is worth to engage WEF rather than other groupings? >>> >> WEF has a high media added-value. I agree, but then just >>> >> ask for a tribune in Davos, to start with. >>> >> >>> >> You question the qualified and trustworthy candidates, >>> >> fine, >>> but you >>> >> totally ignore to answer the pending questions by many >>> >> of us: >>> what >>> >> is this all about? Is this process worth the effort and, >>> >> if >>> NUY lab >>> >> is already elaborating the written conclusions of the >>> initiative, do >>> >> we need to bother to write the conclusions of it with any >>> qualified >>> >> and trustworthy candidate. If so, you should revise your >>> judgement >>> >> and buy the argument (no copyright on this!) that those >>> >> who are willing to get involved are doing this for career >>> >> purposes. Some have already got their career boosted at >>> >> ICANN and a few >>> other cool >>> >> places, might feel that it would be smart for those >>> >> without a comfortable seat to join the carrousel of >>> >> vanities. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks >>> >> JC >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Le 20 nov. 2014 à 12:43, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : >>> >> >>> >>> Hi all, I share Anja's skepticism but also Anriette's >>> >>> more principled stance on participating in new processes. >>> >>> We need to communicate with relevant actors in this field. >>> >>> Ultimately I >>> think >>> >>> the pragmatic question is if we find a sufficient >>> >>> number of qualified and trustworthy candidates who are >>> >>> willing to >>> contribute >>> >>> on our behalf in the NMI. Whether or not we have >>> >>> experienced people who want to participate is a valuable >>> >>> indicator in >>> itself, >>> >>> don't you agree? (I don't buy the well-known argument >>> >>> that those who are willing to get involved do this for >>> >>> career purposes.) Jeanette >>> >>> >>> >>> On 20 November 2014 11:49:06 CET, Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> >> >> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Nnenna. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate >>> >>>> differences of opinion. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as >>> >>>> have >>> many others. >>> >>>> It would be good if this respect for differing >>> >>>> opinions was reciprocated. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> The most substantial side effect for civil society >>> discourse when >>> >>>> someones personal opinion is attacked rather than >>> >>>> respected >>> is that >>> >>>> people stop expressing themselves for fear of being >>> attacked. It >>> >>>> would >>> >>>> be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing >>> >>>> points of >>> view. And >>> >>>> some voices have already been silenced on this issue. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps >>> >>>> we can agree to >>> >>>> respect differences of opinion. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her >>> >>>> life to >>> building >>> >>>> APC as “ an international network and non profit >>> organisation that >>> >>>> wants everyone to have access to a free and open >>> >>>> internet >>> to improve >>> >>>> our lives and create a more just world”. No, she is not >>> >>>> abandoning the >>> >>>> pursuit of social justice. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Ian Peter >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> From: Nnenna Nwakanma >>> >>>> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM >>> >>>> To: michael gurstein >>> >>>> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; >>> >>>> Best Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to >>> >>>> participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is >>> >>>> beginning >>> to amaze me >>> >>>> the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give >>> >>>> something a >>> shot, it is >>> >>>> not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is >>> >>>> being construed as >>> >>>> abandoning the pursuit of social justice? >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> If there was a human being who fought for social >>> >>>> justice, >>> it was >>> >>>> Nelson >>> >>>> Mandela. And it is him who said: >>> >>>> "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to >>> work with >>> >>>> your >>> >>>> enemy. Then he becomes your partner." >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I will rest my case for now >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Nnenna >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein >>> >>>> >>> >> >>> >>>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that >>> >>>> because the NMI offers >>> >>>> some possibility, however remote for the advancement of >>> human rights, >>> >>>> you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the >>> pursuit of >>> >>>> social justice. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> M >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>> >>> >>>> >> > >>> >>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>> >>> >>>> >> >] On Behalf Of >>> Anriette >>> >>>> Esterhuysen >>> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM >>> >>>> To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma >>> >>>> Cc: Governance; Best Bits >>> >>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to >>> >>>> participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Dear all >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is >>> consulting our >>> >>>> members about it at present. We have been really busy >>> >>>> in >>> APC with >>> >>>> project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the >>> >>>> African School on >>> >>>> IG, so apologies for not participating. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian >>> colleagues. I have >>> >>>> also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense >>> that while >>> >>>> there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is >>> >>>> worth >>> giving the >>> >>>> process a try. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote >>> >>>> was >>> excellent, >>> >>>> and I feel that having them in place has put us in a >>> >>>> stronger position. >>> >>>> I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the >>> process is >>> >>>> legitimate and clear. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit >>> >>>> differently from how >>> >>>> Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not >>> >>>> quite >>> as 'black >>> >>>> and white'. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong >>> >>>> concerns we expressed at the time of the NETmundial >>> >>>> Initiative Launch >>> in late >>> >>>> August have actually been addressed. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I don't particularly like the process... I would have >>> >>>> liked >>> more >>> >>>> transparency and consultation around the redesign of >>> >>>> the >>> process and >>> >>>> its mechanisms. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, >>> >>>> and I >>> believe we >>> >>>> should do our best to take it forward, to >>> >>>> intergovernmental spaces, at >>> >>>> national level, and through the IGF. This might sound >>> >>>> pretty naive to >>> >>>> many but I still believe that the only sustainable >>> >>>> path to >>> inclusive >>> >>>> democratic multistakeholder internet policy and >>> >>>> regulation >>> is through >>> >>>> closer connections between multistakeholder and >>> intergovernmental >>> >>>> processes and mechanisms. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be >>> >>>> fast. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> My view would be that civil society participates in >>> >>>> the NMI >>> with the >>> >>>> following: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important >>> >>>> to us >>> >>>> - a limited timeframe >>> >>>> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we >>> >>>> assess whether we >>> >>>> continue or not >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> My proposal would be try and make the process work, >>> >>>> and to >>> link it >>> >>>> closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best >>> >>>> Bits >>> meeting to >>> >>>> get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess >>> whether our >>> >>>> particpation has had impact, whether we have been able >>> >>>> to influence the >>> >>>> process and whether it meets the criteria important to >>> >>>> us. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a >>> >>>> process >>> that >>> >>>> turns >>> >>>> out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk >>> >>>> worth taking, and >>> >>>> we can always withdraw. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the >>> >>>> most progressive, to date, agreement on principles that >>> >>>> respect >>> human >>> >>>> rights >>> >>>> inclusive processes in internet governance simply >>> >>>> fizzling >>> out. I >>> >>>> think that backtracking in that way on what we all >>> >>>> achieved through the >>> >>>> NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we >>> >>>> think >>> about, and >>> >>>> implement, internet governance. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Anriette >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Dear all, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists >>> >>>> could >>> perhaps >>> >>>> shed >>> >>>> some light on why their government has decided to >>> >>>> support this initiative, and how they see it, that could >>> >>>> possibly be very helpful? I >>> >>>> have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the >>> >>>> past, >>> and can't >>> >>>> help but wonder whether I'm missing something here. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am >>> >>>> still not in favour >>> >>>> of civil society networks giving this their stamp of >>> approval (though >>> >>>> as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual >>> organisations >>> >>>> who want to participate to continue doing so and report >>> back to the >>> >>>> wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed >>> >>>> by the Brazilian >>> >>>> government, is just not the place I want to see emerge >>> >>>> as a >>> new power >>> >>>> centre in Internet governance - even less so as they >>> >>>> have >>> already >>> >>>> given >>> >>>> themselves some fixed seats. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I've in particular been wondering what this selection >>> >>>> and >>> committee >>> >>>> means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would >>> "foster" >>> >>>> clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I >>> >>>> know many others >>> >>>> on this list too) have already been contacted by the >>> >>>> Governance Lab at >>> >>>> NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial >>> >>>> Solutions map >>> that >>> >>>> would >>> >>>> be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult >>> >>>> not to feel like >>> >>>> the only thing we and others would be doing is simply >>> >>>> to >>> rubberstamp >>> >>>> things that would happen anyway - but because we okay >>> >>>> them, somehow the >>> >>>> structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a >>> legitimacy >>> >>>> that >>> >>>> they would not have had without. An unwise use of our >>> power, I would >>> >>>> say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is >>> something that a >>> >>>> representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in >>> >>>> an >>> informal >>> >>>> conversation in October. Some of the individual >>> >>>> initiative, >>> such as >>> >>>> that map, might have value, but about the structure as >>> >>>> a >>> whole, I am >>> >>>> not so certain) >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead >>> >>>> start >>> exploring >>> >>>> the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work >>> suggested by >>> >>>> Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about >>> >>>> what they're thinking, and how we could operationalize >>> >>>> this ourselves >>> and take it >>> >>>> forward. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Thanks and best, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Anja >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma >>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially >>> African Civil >>> >>>> Society members here. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. >>> >>>> It is >>> okay to >>> >>>> table our "fears" and let NMI know that our >>> >>>> participation >>> may be >>> >>>> withdrawn if XYZ is not met. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", >>> >>>> but in >>> Africa, I >>> >>>> dont think we should miss out. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants >>> >>>> to participate. >>> >>>> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons >>> >>>> were >>> already very >>> >>>> interested in the NMI. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I see it is okay if one network or list or platform >>> decides NOT to >>> >>>> participate but we cannot ask others not to. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists >>> >>>> nominating >>> people. >>> >>>> And at >>> >>>> the same time, saying that it is important for African >>> >>>> S to participate. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> All for now >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Nnenna >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe >>> >>>> NOTHIAS I >>> The Global >>> >>>> Journal >> >>> >>>> >> >> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Jeremy, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Thanks for your email. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, >>> >>>> but as we both do >>> >>>> not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would >>> >>>> simply be >>> wise to >>> >>>> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we >>> >>>> are in real politics. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of >>> better effect >>> >>>> and impact. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of >>> >>>> observers or participants is that the initiative has more >>> >>>> than a >>> troubling set of >>> >>>> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall >>> confusion. It >>> >>>> looks >>> >>>> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate >>> grouping of a >>> >>>> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep >>> >>>> pockets, and friends >>> >>>> with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify >>> >>>> the >>> obvious >>> >>>> tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo >>> >>>> as a >>> consultant >>> >>>> for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read >>> >>>> the >>> partition >>> >>>> behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you >>> >>>> always >>> call some >>> >>>> troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of >>> >>>> smoke >>> to cross a >>> >>>> street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on >>> >>>> what >>> is at stake >>> >>>> such as >>> >>>> >>> >>>> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact >>> >>>> that >>> the US >>> >>>> refused to discuss mass surveillance? >>> >>>> >>> >>>> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to >>> >>>> keep >>> maturing >>> >>>> and growing? >>> >>>> >>> >>>> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on >>> >>>> this topic, insufficiently at the center of the IG >>> >>>> debate? Isn't encryption part of >>> >>>> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the >>> >>>> US, >>> in Sao >>> >>>> Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after >>> >>>> it? Mass surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told >>> >>>> us. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour >>> against the EU >>> >>>> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly >>> >>>> in my view, that >>> >>>> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond >>> >>>> the >>> simple links >>> >>>> they assembled in their result pages? This is a real >>> >>>> good >>> debate for >>> >>>> CS. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? >>> >>>> More >>> important >>> >>>> than IANA for example? >>> >>>> >>> >>>> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative >>> >>>> ideas >>> when it >>> >>>> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the >>> >>>> ICANN is saying >>> >>>> the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How >>> >>>> can >>> we help >>> >>>> ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? >>> Looking at all >>> >>>> the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively >>> impressed with >>> >>>> their >>> >>>> innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical >>> corps. They >>> >>>> also create more "values". >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in >>> >>>> mind. Nevertheless, >>> >>>> CS should really act differently. The NMI story is >>> >>>> relevant >>> of the >>> >>>> weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this >>> >>>> is not >>> to blame >>> >>>> JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone >>> >>>> today. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN >>> handle CS in a >>> >>>> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We >>> >>>> had >>> to twist >>> >>>> their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, >>> >>>> to >>> simply >>> >>>> get it >>> >>>> not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice >>> >>>> guys" >>> not to go >>> >>>> directly after the right ideas, proposals and >>> >>>> suggestions when launching an open, honest, transparent >>> >>>> debate? Instead they >>> keep >>> >>>> creating distrust with their committees, high level >>> >>>> panel, >>> advisory >>> >>>> boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! >>> >>>> should we all cry. We >>> >>>> are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to >>> >>>> meet, have a debate >>> >>>> and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, >>> citizens and >>> >>>> corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the >>> >>>> growing asymmetry we >>> >>>> live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of >>> >>>> History, and our fellow >>> >>>> citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To >>> >>>> do >>> that you do >>> >>>> not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and >>> confront the >>> >>>> realities that are taking away our rights. This is what >>> should be >>> >>>> done, >>> >>>> now, instead of wasting our time and little money to >>> >>>> debate >>> about the >>> >>>> comfortable sofas of the WEF. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to >>> >>>> its own >>> mandate. >>> >>>> JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and >>> reaching more and >>> >>>> more people. We should not care about that. We should >>> >>>> care >>> about >>> >>>> having >>> >>>> a collective action that would oblige governments, >>> >>>> corps >>> and the >>> >>>> current mandarins to take more progressive steps. >>> Multistakeholderism >>> >>>> when it comes to convene and consult many participants >>> >>>> is >>> certainly >>> >>>> nice. This has often been done, long before we began >>> >>>> to put >>> in our >>> >>>> mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make >>> >>>> decisions at >>> least >>> >>>> on the >>> >>>> public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the >>> >>>> coders >>> had to go >>> >>>> through MS to make decision, they would have simply >>> >>>> gone >>> nowhere. >>> >>>> Only >>> >>>> a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical >>> issues doesn't >>> >>>> equate a political model. It could work, but then it >>> >>>> would lead to some >>> >>>> social disaster, a disruption that would unleash >>> >>>> violence. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor >>> >>>> enough, our bias >>> >>>> is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no >>> corporation, no >>> >>>> barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound >>> >>>> democratic concern (to >>> >>>> avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go >>> >>>> into rationales >>> >>>> as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or >>> >>>> lunatics. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> There is no way that we can really have a strong >>> >>>> impact as >>> civil >>> >>>> society participants if we do not go after unity. And >>> >>>> we all agree that >>> >>>> we should pay more respect to each others, as long as >>> >>>> we do >>> not have >>> >>>> hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their >>> >>>> money >>> in the >>> >>>> debate. That would be fair. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> JC >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I >>> >>>> The >>> Global >>> >>>> Journal >> >>> >>>> >> >> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your >>> >>>> first >>> email. >>> >>>> On a >>> >>>> personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate >>> >>>> about >>> the "dumping >>> >>>> on civil society colleagues" you are referring to, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate >>> >>>> blog >>> post >>> >>>> about >>> >>>> this at igfwatch.org >>> , because JNC’s >>> >>>> pathologies are off-topic for this >>> >>>> list. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. >>> >>>> If I >>> do listen >>> >>>> to non JNC members: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants >>> >>>> to spread Internet Governance more evenly across the >>> >>>> developing world". (Ask Drew >>> >>>> Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of >>> >>>> what >>> is the WIB >>> >>>> Initiative) >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts >>> >>>> from some quarters to create a "UN Security Council” >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard >>> >>>> Samans, >>> ... Fadi >>> >>>> Chehadé: ... >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> None of these statements support the characterisation >>> >>>> of the Initiative >>> >>>> as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global >>> [Internet] >>> >>>> governance”. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Based on these official and public statement, I can >>> >>>> only >>> read JNC >>> >>>> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC >>> reluctance to >>> >>>> participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking >>> >>>> might be to blunt) >>> >>>> of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or >>> >>>> CGIbr are >>> owners of >>> >>>> what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due >>> reserves by >>> >>>> different participants. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the >>> >>>> NETmundial >>> Initiative >>> >>>> (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of >>> >>>> the >>> NETmundial >>> >>>> meeting. On this much we agree. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that >>> convoy ... >>> >>>> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the >>> >>>> serious >>> concerns >>> >>>> seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives >>> presented by the >>> >>>> WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part >>> personally I >>> >>>> certainly have >>> >>>> >>> (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). >>> >>>> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes >>> >>>> the >>> NETmundial >>> >>>> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the >>> motives of >>> >>>> other civil society groups and falsely attributing them >>> with their >>> >>>> endorsement of the Initiative. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed >>> >>>> my rant which was >>> >>>> sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently >>> received, off >>> >>>> list, two emails in support, as well as one against). >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the >>> BestBits list): >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail >>> right now >>> >>>> because I am speaking at a conference today and will be >>> boarding a >>> >>>> flight a few hours later. But I write this brief >>> >>>> response just because >>> >>>> you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring >>> >>>> you - >>> I’m not. >>> >>>> Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your >>> >>>> questions rather than >>> >>>> me monopolising the conversation. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> -- >>> >>>> >>> >>>> 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 :: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the >>> >>>> list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> >>> >> >. >>> >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the >>> >>>> list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> >>> >> >. >>> >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> -- >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>> >>>> The Internet Democracy Project >>> >>>> >>> >>>> +91 9899028053 >>> | @anjakovacs >>> >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________You >>> >>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To >>> >>> >>>> >> > unsubscribe or change >>> >>>> your settings, >>> >>>> visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> -- `````````````````````````````````anriette >>> esterhuysenexecutive >>> >>>> directorassociation for progressive communicationspo >>> >>>> box 29755, melville, 2109, south >>> >>>> africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org >>> >>> >>>> >> > >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> >>> >> >. >>> >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please >>> >>> excuse my >>> brevity. >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> >>> >>> Translate this email: >>> >>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> >> >>> >> >. >>> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> *Renata Avila * >>> >> Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want >>> >> Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer >>> >> +44 7477168593 (UK) >>> >> >>> >> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, >>> Washington >>> >> D.C. 20005 USA **| **www.webfoundation.org >>> * >>> >> * | Twitter: @webfoundation* >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> >> . To unsubscribe or >>> >> change your settings, visit: >>> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> > . To unsubscribe or >>> > change your settings, visit: >>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Renata Avila * >>> Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want >>> Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer >>> +44 7477168593 (UK) >>> >>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, >>> Washington D.C. 20005 USA **| **www.webfoundation.org* >>> * | Twitter: @webfoundation* >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 20 15:29:55 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 20:29:55 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <1136161679.7127.1416476339066.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k07> References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <1136161679.7127.1416476339066.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k07> Message-ID: Hello, On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > Dear Anriette > > I'm profoundly disappointed to see APC rallying the WEF controlled NMI > process. > > > > I thought that APC would have more regards for ethics in the IS (AL C-10 > of the GAP !), and that it would be able to resist the gregarian instinct > of other organisations and (very ) ambitious "CS" people. Coming from the > "South" and particularly from Africa, this tropism towards business with > all its > anti-governmental/anti state beheaviour is truly shoccking. > > From reading your posts over time, I have understood you have an extensive experience of Africa -- or at least with some place(s) in Africa. But I wonder, though, what makes you believe (as it appears in your latter sentence above) that Africans should be more particularly sensitive about the " anti-governmental/anti state beheaviour" of business (so much so that it is shocking when they --Africans-- aren't, or appear not to be.) I understand what can be bad about such business behavior you're decrying, at least based on the example of tax evasion you've referenced. My point is that singling out of Africans (well, I can even concede that you meant to address only African CS) and the implication that they should all share the same incentives and that you know what those incentives are or should be. My first reaction to that is this. Your state/government (which I understand to be that of France) is more of value to you than my state/government (of Togo) is to me; you enjoy more protections and more services from your government than I do from mine. Currently, I can't even enjoy the guaranty of a minimum 512 Kbps bandwidth in my country although it is located on the coastline of the Atlantic Ocean where plenty of capacity has been built out over the last 10 years in the form of submarine optical fiber cable (by the private sector, mind you, and yes, because they want to make profit.) Currently I can't operate properly at the level I would like to if I decide to settle in my country, as I would want to. This situation is not due to business but to my own government which is dragging its feet to provide the country with a landing point for the fiber and is holding on to backward policies (eg, scarce, costly and slow satellite connectivity.) Secondly, governments themselves get in cahoots with big business. I just recall how previous governments in Nigeria were fine with oil business polluting the Niger delta while hanging activist Ken Saro-Wiwa for protesting about it. And I'm sure you know that the French government use their power position with governments in francophone Africa to ensure sweet and even monopolistic deals in favor of French big business. Those are facts, and I'm just saying. Before some people here jump to the conclusion that they now know where I come down on this, let me just say that so far I may have been known for a lot of things, but a big business champion is certainly not one of them (and I have my share of criticism for business.) My point is that in this manicheism we indulge in, no one is really clean (and your manicheism doesn't have to be my manicheism, as we are all likely to have that urge for simplification.) Best, Mawaki > Tax evasion is a model of WEF "governance", just for giving one example, > and this is depriving states and governments of thousends billion dollars > revenue ! Especially in Africa. In your enthousiasm to join the WEF > bandwagon, did you (and APC) forgot this fact ? APC is bringing WSIS-CS > into disrepute. > > Where is our spirit and our commitment of Geneva, when CS was strong > enough to resist the pressure from governments and issued its own > Declaration? > > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > > > > > Message du 20/11/14 08:16 > > De : "Anriette Esterhuysen" > > A : "Anja Kovacs" , "Nnenna Nwakanma" < > nnenna75 at gmail.com> > > Copie à : "Governance" , "Best Bits" < > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > > Objet : Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial > Initiative - RFC > > > > >Dear all > > > > I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our > members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with project > meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on IG, so > apologies for not participating. > > > > Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have > also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there > are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process a > try. > > > > I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, > and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position. I > also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is legitimate > and clear. > > > > I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how > Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and > white'. > > > > My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we > expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August > have actually been addressed. > > > > I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more > transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its > mechanisms. > > > > But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we > should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at > national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to many > but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive democratic > multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through closer > connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental processes and > mechanisms. > > > > I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. > > > > My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the > following: > > > > - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us > > - a limited timeframe > > - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we > continue or not > > > > > > My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it > closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to get > together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our particpation > has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the process and > whether it meets the criteria important to us. > > > > This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns > out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, and we > can always withdraw. > > > > Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive, > to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive > processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I think that > backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial > would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement, > internet governance. > > > > Anriette > > > > > > > On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed > some light on why their government has decided to support this initiative, > and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I have had great > respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't help but wonder > whether I'm missing something here. > > > > For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour of > civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though as > earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations who want > to participate to continue doing so and report back to the wider > community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian > government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power > centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given > themselves some fixed seats. > > > > I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee means > seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" clearly are > already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others on this list > too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at NYU to give > feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would be developed > under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like the only thing > we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp things that would > happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the structure and the > initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that they would not have > had without. An unwise use of our power, I would say (that they would go > ahead without us anyway is something that a representative from the WEF > made clear enough to me in an informal conversation in October. Some of the > individual initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the > structure as a whole, I am not so certain) > > > > I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring the > constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by Amelia and > others. I would love to hear more about what they're thinking, and how we > could operationalize this ourselves and take it forward. > > > > Thanks and best, > Anja > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > > >> >> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil >> Society members here. >> > >> > >> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to table >> our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be withdrawn if XYZ >> is not met. >> > >> > I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I >> dont think we should miss out. >> > >> > >> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate. >> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very >> interested in the NMI. >> > >> > >> I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to >> participate but we cannot ask others not to. >> > >> > Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at >> the same time, saying that it is important for African S to participate. >> > >> > >> All for now >> > >> > Nnenna >> > >> >> > >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >> Journal wrote: >> > >> >>> Jeremy, >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks for your email. >>> >>> > >>> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do >>> not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to >>> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real politics. >>> >>> > >>> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect and >>> impact. >>> >>> > >>> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or >>> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of >>> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks >>> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a >>> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends with >>> deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics behind >>> all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my >>> life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of that >>> smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie" >>> when you need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple >>> line. No, let's stay on what is at stake such as >>> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US >>> refused to discuss mass surveillance? >>> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing and >>> growing? >>> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, >>> insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of >>> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao Paulo, >>> then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass surveillance has >>> nothing to do with IG they told us. >>> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU >>> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that >>> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links they >>> assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for CS. >>> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important >>> than IANA for example? >>> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it >>> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying the >>> political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help ourselves to >>> have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are >>> currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their innovative >>> abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They also create more >>> "values". >>> >>> > >>> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless, >>> CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the weakness >>> that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame JNC or anyone >>> else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today. >>> >>> > >>> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a >>> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist their >>> arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it not that >>> bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go directly after >>> the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when launching an open, honest, >>> transparent debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their >>> committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is critical. "Please >>> energize me! should we all cry. We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. >>> >>> > >>> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate >>> and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and >>> corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we live >>> in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow citizens, >>> we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do not need any >>> WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the realities that are >>> taking away our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of >>> wasting our time and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of >>> the WEF. >>> >>> > >>> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. JNC >>> is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and more >>> people. We should not care about that. We should care about having a >>> collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the current >>> mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes >>> to convene and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has often >>> been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When >>> it comes to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply >>> doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, they >>> would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other >>> few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It could work, >>> but then it would lead to some social disaster, a disruption that would >>> unleash violence. >>> >>> > >>> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias >>> is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no >>> barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to >>> avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales as >>> long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics. >>> >>> > >>> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil society >>> participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that we should >>> pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have hidden agenda, >>> and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the debate. That would be >>> fair. >>> >>> > >>> JC >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> > >>> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : >>> >>> > >>> >>> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >>> Journal wrote: >>> > >>> >>> >>> > >>> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a >>> personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on >>> civil society colleagues" you are referring to, >>> >>> >>> > >>> Within the next few days I'm going to write a separate blog post about >>> this at igfwatch.org, because JNC's pathologies are off-topic for this >>> list. >>> >>> > >>> >>> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen >>> to non JNC members: >>> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread Internet >>> Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew Fitzgerald >>> about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB Initiative) >>> >>> >>> > >>> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. >>> >>> > >>> >>> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some >>> quarters to create a "UN Security Council" >>> >>> >>> > >>> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? >>> >>> > >>> >>> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi >>> Chehadé: ... >>> >>> >>> > >>> None of these statements support the characterisation of the >>> Initiative as in your letter as "being 'the' mechanism for global >>> [Internet] governance". >>> >>> > >>> >>> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC >>> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to >>> participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of >>> the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what >>> was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different >>> participants. >>> >>> >>> > >>> I've also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative >>> (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial >>> meeting. On this much we agree. >>> >>> > >>> >>> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... >>> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns seen >>> in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN >>> and CGIbr. >>> >>> >>> > >>> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I >>> certainly have ( >>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). >>> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial >>> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of other >>> civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their endorsement of >>> the Initiative. >>> >>> > >>> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was >>> sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off list, >>> two emails in support, as well as one against). >>> >>> > >>> >>> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): >>> >>> >>> > >>> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now because >>> I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a flight a few >>> hours later. But I write this brief response just because you suggested in >>> most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I'm not. Anyway, others can >>> respond to the balance of your questions rather than me monopolising the >>> conversation. >>> >>> > >>> -- >>> 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 :: >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > > The Internet Democracy Project > > > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > -- > ````````````````````````````````` > anriette esterhuysen > executive director > association for progressive communications > po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Thu Nov 20 15:31:46 2014 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 20:31:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] Civil society participation in NMI Coordination committee Message-ID: IGP has just published a blog post on the topic referenced above (NMI) http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/11/20/nyet-mundial-taming-the-ambitions-of-the-weficanncgi-alliance/ Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 20 15:43:42 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 16:43:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <1486537673.7522.1416390999726.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f29> <4D5FE9B9-60E9-4AE4-BC19-5A72B08E78A6@orange.fr> Message-ID: I asked in an earlier post whether civil society has been manoeuvred into a position in which choosing not to be involved becomes not really an option? As civil society we have a very broad range of perspective and therefore it is much more difficult for this group to act together rapidly, as ISOC has done, when the nature of the issue itself is still doubtful. Other people have already reminded us of the hesitation before the NETmundial meeting in April, and the enthusiasm (in general) which greeted the outcomes of that meeting, although there are still some reservations – Renata just shared hers. My sympathies lean towards a reluctance to provide legitimacy, but my common sense suggests the following: 1. As far as I can see the Netmundial Initiative will continue with or without us. 2. Civil Society is split now (and has been split for some time) so that any attempt at a boycott is likely to fail because it will be incomplete. 3. The invitation to join can be presented in such a way as to provide legitimacy even if not all of civil society agrees to accept. (This is what I meant by “manoeuvred” above.) 4. We have not been given a clear picture of what the initiative is – it may prove to be something that meets our approval – or not. 5. It is very important that any civil society representatives who join that committee should be people who go with an open mind. Those who disapprove are absenting themselves anyway; it would be better to have representatives who are initially neutral but open to be persuaded one way or the other. 6. Finally, should the initiative prove to be unacceptable, a well publicised walkout by the 5 civil society representatives (who are also representing “the world”) would be much easier to arrange and much more effective than a partial boycott before the meeting takes place. The discussion at the Geneva Internet Conference about the Netmundial Initiative yesterday morning (Wednesday 19th) was useful. On Tuesday during “*Same issues, different perspectives: overcoming policy silos in privacy and data protection”, **one of the afternoon sessions, *Brian Trammell, Senior Researcher, Communication Systems Group, ETH Zurich, presenting the “technical” perspective, said of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) that members are volunteers who “participate as individuals”. This is also true of the Internet Governance Caucus, and essentially of civil society as a whole. One of the freedoms that our society tries to provide is the right of the individual to follow the dictates of her/his own conscience. My own choice is a pragmatic one. It should in no way be seen as a criticism of anyone else's point of view or decision. Deirdre On 20 November 2014 11:41, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Fellas, > Some of us have raised questions about the views of the Brazilian party > (CGI.br) in this NMI business. But I know they are in a delicate position > and may be concerned to appear as judge and jury if they come out strong > for a position (and we can expect which that position would be.) Flavio is > not on the IGC list but he granted me the permission to forward to this > list this message of his below, originally posted to the Non-Commercial > Stakeholder Group of ICANN's GNSO. > Best, > > Mawaki > > > Fw: [NCSG-Discuss] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL > INITIATIVE > > On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:55 AM, Flávio Rech Wagner < > flavio at INF.UFRGS.BR> wrote: > > > Robin > > I have been informed that the "transitional council" of the NMI - > NETmundial Initiative (which contains representatives from ICANN, CGI.br > and WEF and is provisory, until the 25 names of the permanent council have > been defined) is having an intense dialogue with CSCG (the Civil Society > Coordination Group) and, together, they shall come to a solution for > appointing names to the council by consensus and fully respecting > nominations from Civil Society. There is no intention whatsoever from the > transitional council to indicate names in a closed, top-down manner and > without full endorsement from CSCG. > > The transitional council also expects to achieve similar solutions for > appointing names that will represent other stakeholder groups. > > Please notice that CGI.br (the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee), > which is one of the entities proposing the NMI, would never agree with > top-down, closed decisions that would strongly undermine CGI's legitimacy > as a true bottom-up, multistakeholder body. CGI.br is completely committed > to preserve the NETmundial principles in the implementation of the NMI. > > Please remember also that, when NETmundial was proposed by the end of > 2013, all of us in the global Internet Governance (IG) community, because > of lack of information, were puzzled about its organization and possible > success and outcomes. But the global community faced the challenge and > transformed a vague idea into a successful event, with a true > multistakeholder organization, with very open and transparent processes, > and with a final document that was achieved by rough consensus and approved > governance principles that were praised by most of the stakeholders > (including human rights and other principles that are extremely valued by > Civil Society). > > So let's try to transform NMI, which is still also a vague idea, into > something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG and that > fully respects the principles enshrined in the NETmundial declaration. > > Flávio > (NCUC member and member of the Board of CGI.br) > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 16:29:04 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 17:29:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Fwd=3A_=5Bbestbits=5D_Fwd=3A_Message_to_at?= =?UTF-8?Q?tendees_of_The_United_Nations_and_the_Internet=E2=80=94What?= =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=99s_Next_-_A=2E=2E=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: <20141120212535.B785E1CA9A@prod-task-app2.evbops.com> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Carolina Rossini Date: 20 November 2014 17:27 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Message to attendees of The United Nations and the Internet—What’s Next - A... To: " bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" < bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greater Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society < auto-message at eventbrite.com> Date: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 4:25 PM Subject: Message to attendees of The United Nations and the Internet—What’s Next - A... To: carolina.rossini at gmail.com A Message from Greater Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society: Thanks to all who came out in person or were one of the 58 people listening online. I think it was a great event and glad we got so many people to come in person or join online. If you had not had a chance to get your questions asked or answered please let us know and we would be happy to pass it on to the Discussants. If you missed some part of the event, we have archived the webcast and it can be viewed here. http://www.isoc-dc.org/isoc-dc-tv/ If you want to come to our future events, please join our email list http://www.isoc-dc.org/email-sign-up/ See you at future events. This invitation was sent to carolina.rossini at gmail.com by Greater Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society the organizer. To stop receiving invitations from this organizer, you can unsubscribe . [image: Eventbrite] Eventbrite | 155 5th St | San Francisco, CA 94103 -- -- *Carolina Rossini * *Vice President, International Policy* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From caribe at entropia.blog.br Thu Nov 20 17:22:04 2014 From: caribe at entropia.blog.br (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Carlos_Rebello_Carib=E9?=) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 20:22:04 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <13BE819A-5515-45BF-ADD7-789D0E8DC33D@entropia.blog.br> This phrase is perfect Nnenna! "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner." Dears, I'm experiencing an intense cognitive dissonance on this thread. My ideological point of view show me that I need to agree to ISOC and others and refuse NMI, however my strategical point of view show me that I need to follow that amazing Mandela's phrase above. The fact is that MNI will move forward with or without us, and without us "on board" the things may get worse. Agreeing or not NMI was conceived behind the WEF, and this not appear subject to change. On the other hand this is one path for the actors of civil society (we) "hack the system" from inside them, paraphrasing Nelson Mandela I will evoke Sun Tzu to this big shoulder's board: "Knows yourself and the enemy and win all battles". With this in mind I've decided to nominate myself to a chair under LAC, Civil Society sector at MNI, once elected I will do my best for our agenda including Transparency, Accountability, Open participation and other demands. If you agree with me, and want to support my candidature, please let me know. Thanks for all Joao Carlos Caribe Em 20/11/2014, às 08:26, Nnenna Nwakanma escreveu: > Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as abandoning the pursuit of social justice? > > If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson Mandela. And it is him who said: > "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner." > > I will rest my case for now > > Nnenna -- João Carlos R. Caribé Consultor Skype joaocaribe (021) 9 8761 1967 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From caribe at entropia.blog.br Thu Nov 20 17:27:10 2014 From: caribe at entropia.blog.br (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Carlos_Rebello_Carib=E9?=) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 20:27:10 -0200 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <1486537673.7522.1416390999726.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f29> <4D5FE9B9-60E9-4AE4-BC19-5A72B08E78A6@orange.fr> Message-ID: Perfect Deirdre, Also I sent a short message agreeing that however we can't agree, we must participate, also we can get not only 5 but 10 seats if we have candidates from Academia / Technical sector too. Joao Carlos Em 20/11/2014, às 18:43, Deirdre Williams escreveu: > I asked in an earlier post whether civil society has been manoeuvred into a position in which choosing not to be involved becomes not really an option? As civil society we have a very broad range of perspective and therefore it is much more difficult for this group to act together rapidly, as ISOC has done, when the nature of the issue itself is still doubtful. Other people have already reminded us of the hesitation before the NETmundial meeting in April, and the enthusiasm (in general) which greeted the outcomes of that meeting, although there are still some reservations – Renata just shared hers. > My sympathies lean towards a reluctance to provide legitimacy, but my common sense suggests the following: > As far as I can see the Netmundial Initiative will continue with or without us. > Civil Society is split now (and has been split for some time) so that any attempt at a boycott is likely to fail because it will be incomplete. > The invitation to join can be presented in such a way as to provide legitimacy even if not all of civil society agrees to accept. (This is what I meant by “manoeuvred” above.) > We have not been given a clear picture of what the initiative is – it may prove to be something that meets our approval – or not. > It is very important that any civil society representatives who join that committee should be people who go with an open mind. Those who disapprove are absenting themselves anyway; it would be better to have representatives who are initially neutral but open to be persuaded one way or the other. > Finally, should the initiative prove to be unacceptable, a well publicised walkout by the 5 civil society representatives (who are also representing “the world”) would be much easier to arrange and much more effective than a partial boycott before the meeting takes place. > The discussion at the Geneva Internet Conference about the Netmundial Initiative yesterday morning (Wednesday 19th) was useful. On Tuesday during “Same issues, different perspectives: overcoming policy silos in privacy and data protection”, one of the afternoon sessions, Brian Trammell, Senior Researcher, Communication Systems Group, ETH Zurich, presenting the “technical” perspective, said of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) that members are volunteers who “participate as individuals”. This is also true of the Internet Governance Caucus, and essentially of civil society as a whole. One of the freedoms that our society tries to provide is the right of the individual to follow the dictates of her/his own conscience. My own choice is a pragmatic one. It should in no way be seen as a criticism of anyone else's point of view or decision. > Deirdre > > On 20 November 2014 11:41, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Fellas, > Some of us have raised questions about the views of the Brazilian party (CGI.br) in this NMI business. But I know they are in a delicate position and may be concerned to appear as judge and jury if they come out strong for a position (and we can expect which that position would be.) Flavio is not on the IGC list but he granted me the permission to forward to this list this message of his below, originally posted to the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN's GNSO. > Best, > > Mawaki > > > Fw: [NCSG-Discuss] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE > > On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:55 AM, Flávio Rech Wagner wrote: > > > Robin > > I have been informed that the "transitional council" of the NMI - NETmundial Initiative (which contains representatives from ICANN, CGI.br and WEF and is provisory, until the 25 names of the permanent council have been defined) is having an intense dialogue with CSCG (the Civil Society Coordination Group) and, together, they shall come to a solution for appointing names to the council by consensus and fully respecting nominations from Civil Society. There is no intention whatsoever from the transitional council to indicate names in a closed, top-down manner and without full endorsement from CSCG. > > The transitional council also expects to achieve similar solutions for appointing names that will represent other stakeholder groups. > > Please notice that CGI.br (the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee), which is one of the entities proposing the NMI, would never agree with top-down, closed decisions that would strongly undermine CGI's legitimacy as a true bottom-up, multistakeholder body. CGI.br is completely committed to preserve the NETmundial principles in the implementation of the NMI. > > Please remember also that, when NETmundial was proposed by the end of 2013, all of us in the global Internet Governance (IG) community, because of lack of information, were puzzled about its organization and possible success and outcomes. But the global community faced the challenge and transformed a vague idea into a successful event, with a true multistakeholder organization, with very open and transparent processes, and with a final document that was achieved by rough consensus and approved governance principles that were praised by most of the stakeholders (including human rights and other principles that are extremely valued by Civil Society). > > So let's try to transform NMI, which is still also a vague idea, into something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG and that fully respects the principles enshrined in the NETmundial declaration. > > Flávio > (NCUC member and member of the Board of CGI.br) > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -- João Carlos R. Caribé Consultor Skype joaocaribe (021) 9 8761 1967 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From compsoftnet at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 17:49:01 2014 From: compsoftnet at gmail.com (Akinremi Peter Taiwo) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 23:49:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <1486537673.7522.1416390999726.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f29> <4D5FE9B9-60E9-4AE4-BC19-5A72B08E78A6@orange.fr> Message-ID: Well, I understand that this is a critical decision civil society need to make, as said before if civil society are not part of NMI and the platform turns to worth it, what will be our outcome? I think instead of having two voices, we should sit down together(meetings) and analysis and rub mind on the issues of NMI to understand each others perspectives while strategically plan for any negative outcome of NMI. This calls for wisdom, our presence is better than nothing for check and balance. Cheers!!! Peter On Nov 20, 2014 9:44 PM, "Deirdre Williams" wrote: > I asked in an earlier post whether civil society has been manoeuvred into > a position in which choosing not to be involved becomes not really an > option? As civil society we have a very broad range of perspective and > therefore it is much more difficult for this group to act together rapidly, > as ISOC has done, when the nature of the issue itself is still doubtful. > Other people have already reminded us of the hesitation before the > NETmundial meeting in April, and the enthusiasm (in general) which greeted > the outcomes of that meeting, although there are still some reservations – > Renata just shared hers. > > My sympathies lean towards a reluctance to provide legitimacy, but my > common sense suggests the following: > > 1. > > As far as I can see the Netmundial Initiative will continue with or > without us. > 2. > > Civil Society is split now (and has been split for some time) so that > any attempt at a boycott is likely to fail because it will be incomplete. > 3. > > The invitation to join can be presented in such a way as to provide > legitimacy even if not all of civil society agrees to accept. (This is what > I meant by “manoeuvred” above.) > 4. > > We have not been given a clear picture of what the initiative is – it > may prove to be something that meets our approval – or not. > 5. > > It is very important that any civil society representatives who join > that committee should be people who go with an open mind. Those who > disapprove are absenting themselves anyway; it would be better to have > representatives who are initially neutral but open to be persuaded one way > or the other. > 6. > > Finally, should the initiative prove to be unacceptable, a well > publicised walkout by the 5 civil society representatives (who are also > representing “the world”) would be much easier to arrange and much more > effective than a partial boycott before the meeting takes place. > > The discussion at the Geneva Internet Conference about the Netmundial > Initiative yesterday morning (Wednesday 19th) was useful. On Tuesday > during “*Same issues, different perspectives: overcoming policy silos in > privacy and data protection”, **one of the afternoon sessions, *Brian > Trammell, Senior Researcher, Communication Systems Group, ETH Zurich, > presenting the “technical” perspective, said of the Internet Engineering > Task Force (IETF) that members are volunteers who “participate as > individuals”. This is also true of the Internet Governance Caucus, and > essentially of civil society as a whole. One of the freedoms that our > society tries to provide is the right of the individual to follow the > dictates of her/his own conscience. My own choice is a pragmatic one. It > should in no way be seen as a criticism of anyone else's point of view or > decision. > > Deirdre > > On 20 November 2014 11:41, Mawaki Chango wrote: > >> Fellas, >> Some of us have raised questions about the views of the Brazilian party >> (CGI.br) in this NMI business. But I know they are in a delicate position >> and may be concerned to appear as judge and jury if they come out strong >> for a position (and we can expect which that position would be.) Flavio is >> not on the IGC list but he granted me the permission to forward to this >> list this message of his below, originally posted to the Non-Commercial >> Stakeholder Group of ICANN's GNSO. >> Best, >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> Fw: [NCSG-Discuss] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL >> INITIATIVE >> >> On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:55 AM, Flávio Rech Wagner < >> flavio at INF.UFRGS.BR> wrote: >> >> >> Robin >> >> I have been informed that the "transitional council" of the NMI - >> NETmundial Initiative (which contains representatives from ICANN, CGI.br >> and WEF and is provisory, until the 25 names of the permanent council have >> been defined) is having an intense dialogue with CSCG (the Civil Society >> Coordination Group) and, together, they shall come to a solution for >> appointing names to the council by consensus and fully respecting >> nominations from Civil Society. There is no intention whatsoever from the >> transitional council to indicate names in a closed, top-down manner and >> without full endorsement from CSCG. >> >> The transitional council also expects to achieve similar solutions for >> appointing names that will represent other stakeholder groups. >> >> Please notice that CGI.br (the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee), >> which is one of the entities proposing the NMI, would never agree with >> top-down, closed decisions that would strongly undermine CGI's legitimacy >> as a true bottom-up, multistakeholder body. CGI.br is completely committed >> to preserve the NETmundial principles in the implementation of the NMI. >> >> Please remember also that, when NETmundial was proposed by the end of >> 2013, all of us in the global Internet Governance (IG) community, because >> of lack of information, were puzzled about its organization and possible >> success and outcomes. But the global community faced the challenge and >> transformed a vague idea into a successful event, with a true >> multistakeholder organization, with very open and transparent processes, >> and with a final document that was achieved by rough consensus and approved >> governance principles that were praised by most of the stakeholders >> (including human rights and other principles that are extremely valued by >> Civil Society). >> >> So let's try to transform NMI, which is still also a vague idea, into >> something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG and that >> fully respects the principles enshrined in the NETmundial declaration. >> >> Flávio >> (NCUC member and member of the Board of CGI.br) >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 20 18:09:38 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 15:09:38 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: > Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me the > more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is not > perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as > abandoning the pursuit of social justice? I too am amazed that it amazes civil society people that someone makes a direct connection between partnering with a WEF based initiative on governing a key social sector and compromising on social justice considerations.. In this regard, one would want to point to literature on what is the world social forum for instance, how it came into being in direct opposition to a Davos or WEF world view, and how the concept of social justice is central to this opposition and so on, but one would have thought people and groups in global civil society will know these facts.. But indeed there are "new reality" global civil societies I suppose.. They are ready to "give a shot" to anything as long as - or is it just a coincidence - the status quo of global Internet power is on the same side of to what a shot is being given. (It is perhaps just a coincidence that US is the only country which has till now issued a statement on the NMI - and of course positive, and big US Internet companies are on WEF's board.) No, we did not think of giving a shot to , well, maybe the ITU could be a fine place to deal with Internet issues .. In that case the fancy new ideas of 'making your enemy your partner' did not occur to anyone.... Again, just a coincidence that US and Google had preemptorily declared before the WCIT that Internet is not a telecom service and therefore it is not ITU's remit (although back in the US, both the gov and google today seek classification of Internet as a telecom service under title 2 of FCC's legal instruments) Amazing indeed! parminder > > If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson > Mandela. And it is him who said: > "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your > enemy. Then he becomes your partner." > > I will rest my case for now > > Nnenna > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: > >> So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI offers >> some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, >> you >> are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of social >> justice. >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: >> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Anriette Esterhuysen >> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM >> *To:* Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma >> *Cc:* Governance; Best Bits >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in >> NETmundial Initiative - RFC >> >> >> >> Dear all >> >> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our >> members >> about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with project >> meetings, >> evaluations, planning, and also the African School on IG, so apologies >> for >> not participating. >> >> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have >> also >> asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there are >> concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process a >> try. >> >> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, >> and >> I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position. I >> also >> feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is legitimate and >> clear. >> >> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how >> Ian >> had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and >> white'. >> >> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we >> expressed >> at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August have >> actually been addressed. >> >> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more >> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its >> mechanisms. >> >> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we >> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at >> national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to >> many >> but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive >> democratic >> multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through closer >> connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental processes and >> mechanisms. >> >> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. >> >> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the >> following: >> >> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us >> - a limited timeframe >> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we >> continue or not >> >> >> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it >> closely >> to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to get >> together >> prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our particpation has >> had >> impact, whether we have been able to influence the process and whether >> it >> meets the criteria important to us. >> >> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns >> out >> not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, and we >> can >> always withdraw. >> >> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive, >> to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive >> processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I think that >> backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial >> would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement, >> internet governance. >> >> Anriette >> >> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed >> some light on why their government has decided to support this >> initiative, >> and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I have had >> great >> respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't help but wonder >> whether I'm missing something here. >> >> >> >> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour >> of >> civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though as >> earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations who >> want >> to participate to continue doing so and report back to the wider >> community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian >> government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power >> centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given >> themselves some fixed seats. >> >> >> >> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee >> means >> seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" clearly are >> already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others on this list >> too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at NYU to give >> feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would be developed >> under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like the only >> thing >> we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp things that would >> happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the structure and the >> initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that they would not have >> had without. An unwise use of our power, I would say (that they would go >> ahead without us anyway is something that a representative from the WEF >> made clear enough to me in an informal conversation in October. Some of >> the >> individual initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the >> structure as a whole, I am not so certain) >> >> >> >> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring >> the >> constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by Amelia >> and >> others. I would love to hear more about what they're thinking, and how >> we >> could operationalize this ourselves and take it forward. >> >> >> >> Thanks and best, >> >> Anja >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >> >> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil >> Society members here. >> >> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to table >> our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be withdrawn if >> XYZ >> is not met. >> >> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I >> dont >> think we should miss out. >> >> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate. >> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very >> interested in the NMI. >> >> I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to >> participate but we cannot ask others not to. >> >> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at >> the same time, saying that it is important for African S to participate. >> >> All for now >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >> Journal wrote: >> >> Jeremy, >> >> Thanks for your email. >> >> >> >> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do >> not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to >> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real >> politics. >> >> >> >> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect and >> impact. >> >> >> >> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or >> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of >> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks >> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a >> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends >> with >> deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics >> behind >> all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in >> my >> life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of that >> smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers from the >> "génie" >> when you need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple >> line. No, let's stay on what is at stake such as >> >> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US >> refused >> to discuss mass surveillance? >> >> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing and >> growing? >> >> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, >> insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of >> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao Paulo, >> then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass surveillance has >> nothing to do with IG they told us. >> >> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU >> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that >> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links >> they >> assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for CS. >> >> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important >> than >> IANA for example? >> >> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it >> comes >> to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying the >> political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help ourselves >> to >> have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are >> currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their innovative >> abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They also create >> more >> "values". >> >> >> >> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless, >> CS >> should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the weakness >> that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame JNC or >> anyone >> else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today. >> >> >> >> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a >> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist their >> arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it not >> that >> bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go directly after >> the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when launching an open, >> honest, >> transparent debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their >> committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is critical. >> "Please >> energize me! should we all cry. We are all losing. Terrifying, I would >> say. >> >> >> >> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate >> and >> launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and >> corporations >> to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we live in since >> the >> mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow citizens, we are >> failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do not need any WEF. >> You >> only need to trust, share, and confront the realities that are taking >> away >> our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of wasting our >> time >> and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of the WEF. >> >> >> >> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. JNC >> is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and more >> people. We should not care about that. We should care about having a >> collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the current >> mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it >> comes >> to convene and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has >> often >> been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. >> When >> it comes to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS >> simply >> doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, they >> would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other >> few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It could >> work, >> but then it would lead to some social disaster, a disruption that would >> unleash violence. >> >> >> >> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias >> is >> somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no >> barons. >> We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to avoid >> another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales as long >> as >> we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics. >> >> >> >> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil society >> participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that we >> should >> pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have hidden >> agenda, >> and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the debate. That would >> be >> fair. >> >> >> >> JC >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : >> >> >> >> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >> Journal < >> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a >> personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on >> civil society colleagues" you are referring to, >> >> >> >> Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post about >> this at igfwatch.org, because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic for this >> list. >> >> >> >> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen to >> non JNC members: >> >> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread Internet >> Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew >> Fitzgerald >> about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB Initiative) >> >> >> >> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. >> >> >> >> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some quarters >> to create a "UN Security Council” >> >> >> >> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? >> >> >> >> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi >> Chehadé: ... >> >> >> >> None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative >> as >> in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global [Internet] >> governance”. >> >> >> >> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC >> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to >> participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) >> of >> the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what >> was >> stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different >> participants. >> >> >> >> I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative >> (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial >> meeting. On this much we agree. >> >> >> >> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... >> should >> for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns seen in >> the >> making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN and >> CGIbr. >> >> >> >> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I >> certainly have ( >> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). >> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial >> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of other >> civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their endorsement >> of >> the Initiative. >> >> >> >> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was >> sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off >> list, >> two emails in support, as well as one against). >> >> >> >> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): >> >> >> >> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now because >> I >> am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a flight a few >> hours >> later. But I write this brief response just because you suggested in >> most >> recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not. Anyway, others can >> respond >> to the balance of your questions rather than me monopolising the >> conversation. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> 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 :: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ````````````````````````````````` >> >> anriette esterhuysen >> >> executive director >> >> association for progressive communications >> >> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa >> >> anriette at apc.org >> >> www.apc.org >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Nov 20 18:17:31 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 15:17:31 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <546E396B.60504@cafonso.ca> References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> <546E2D26.3040801@cafonso.ca> <41F67CCE-5AB8-4341-BDE7-30A6F05FC243@theglobaljournal.net> <546E396B.60504@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <30ec12418335df6ca007e4e9a24d268a.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> > > Carlos, can you share information about plans to reopen the text for > > discussion? > > With pleasure: it is called NETmundial Initiative. Whereby you are saying that the new NetMundial Initiative is indeed a normative process as the NM meeting in Sao Paolo was. Richard Samans of WEF says it is not a normative process at all.. Can you guys be clear what it is and what it is not? parminder > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 11/20/14 16:47, Renata Avila wrote: >> ​Dear all, >> >> Happy to clarify my email, if it was not clear enough. I am also >> including the maps I did not include in my previous email. >> >> Again, there are no indications of opening and continuing revising the >> draft document. If there is a process to reopen the document and improve >> it, please indicate it. I know Net Mundial was considered by many a huge >> achievement and consensus. For the three reasons I explained before >> >> 1. Weak anti surveillance language >> 2. Inclusion of copyright provisions >> 3. Lack of South input, from all sectors >> >> I have always considered quite incomplete. If it is an open discussion >> and there will be an engaging process to "fix it" then it is a different >> conversation. >> >> Carlos, can you share information about plans to reopen the text for >> discussion? >> >> With respect, >> >> Renata​ >> >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >> Journal > > wrote: >> >> Is this all what you read/oppose in Renata's email? There ought to >> be no limit to sincerely try to understand what someone else is >> formulating rather brilliantly and so rightfully. So tell us more >> about what is silly here? >> >> >> Le 20 nov. 2014 à 19:04, Carlos Afonso a écrit : >> >> > Where is it stated that the declaration of São Paulo (principles >> and roadmap of NETmundial) are "final"?? >> > >> > --c.a. >> > >> > On 11/20/14 10:47, Renata Avila wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> I do not write often in this list, but, as I made it clear >> earlier at >> >> the closing ceremony of Net Mundial Initiative, I am really >> concerned at >> >> any effort adopting the Net Mundial ¨final¨ outcome as such, >> as >> final. >> >> Mrs. Rousseff started her crusade as an effort to tackle or at >> least, >> >> somehow, regulate the pervasive surveillance from a group of >> governments >> >> against all citizens. The result was a monster, the process was >> flawed, >> >> the language against massive surveillance was weak, the >> introduction the >> >> language to please the copyright lobby really undermined solid, >> >> multiyear efforts of the copyright reformists, too. Adopting >> such >> >> document, which so far is just the result of an event outside >> the >> >> regular events around Internet Governance is simply dangerous >> and silly, >> >> because in no way is a big victory for two of the most important >> battles >> >> for the future of our knowledge societies, of our free >> societies. A >> >> rigid exam, or even an exam at first sight of the outcome >> document will >> >> show that it certainly fails to adopt the highest human rights >> standards. >> >> >> >> The other issue was participation. As you can see in the >> brilliant work >> >> by CIS India http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/index.html >> and the >> >> attached maps, the voices from the global south, especially the >> poorest >> >> countries from Africa and Latin America, where largely missing >> in the >> >> debates. It was a North lead debate. It was a highly specialised >> debate, >> >> but, paradoxically, with terrible flaws as there were Internet >> >> Governance experts, but, except for the very good contributions >> of >> >> privacy experts like Jacob Appelbaum and Copyright experts like >> Mishi, >> >> there was a vast lack of expertise, or at least no unity in key >> demands. >> >> >> >> So for me, in spite of the good faith of the Brazilians, any >> effort that >> >> will marry with the Net Mundial Final Document as such, as >> final, is >> >> flawed and has very little reform or even information potential >> for >> >> Civil Society. Because we will not be asking for and promoting >> the >> >> adoption of higher but lower standards, because the whole >> exercise lacks >> >> the voices and concerns for the very actors which will be the >> most >> >> affected by the adoption of such principles and roadmap as the >> one >> >> forward and because, again, very few of those who are not >> represented >> >> will be able to afford the time and resources that such >> initiative >> >> demands. So it will be again, a conversation among few. >> >> >> >> There is also the public v. private interest here, but that >> issue has >> >> been discussed extensively. My concern is basically the >> legitimacy we >> >> are giving to such disastrous outcome, reaching and promoting a >> new low. >> >> >> >> * This is a personal opinion and in no way reflects the opinion >> or >> >> position of the Web Foundation. >> >> >> >> Renata >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The >> Global >> >> Journal > >> >> > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Jeanette, >> >> >> >> Thanks for sharing Anja's skepticism. But Anja has expressed, >> more >> >> importantly in my opinion, precise questions and given >> detailed >> >> information that ignited her skepticism. Where are the >> answers to >> >> her questions? Anriette has made suggestions: where are the >> >> reactions? Talking about relevant actors: is WEF a relevant >> actor? >> >> WEF is a network of corporations, big ones. Shouldn't civil >> society >> >> engage instead the smaller entrepreneurs, who creates much >> more jobs >> >> that the WEF membership? What is the criteria to say that it >> is >> >> worth to engage WEF rather than other groupings? WEF has a >> high >> >> media added-value. I agree, but then just ask for a tribune >> in >> >> Davos, to start with. >> >> >> >> You question the qualified and trustworthy candidates, fine, >> but you >> >> totally ignore to answer the pending questions by many of us: >> what >> >> is this all about? Is this process worth the effort and, if >> NUY lab >> >> is already elaborating the written conclusions of the >> initiative, do >> >> we need to bother to write the conclusions of it with any >> qualified >> >> and trustworthy candidate. If so, you should revise your >> judgement >> >> and buy the argument (no copyright on this!) that those who >> are >> >> willing to get involved are doing this for career purposes. >> Some >> >> have already got their career boosted at ICANN and a few >> other cool >> >> places, might feel that it would be smart for those without a >> >> comfortable seat to join the carrousel of vanities. >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> JC >> >> >> >> >> >> Le 20 nov. 2014 à 12:43, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : >> >> >> >>> Hi all, I share Anja's skepticism but also Anriette's more >> >>> principled stance on participating in new processes. We need >> to >> >>> communicate with relevant actors in this field. Ultimately I >> think >> >>> the pragmatic question is if we find a sufficient number of >> >>> qualified and trustworthy candidates who are willing to >> contribute >> >>> on our behalf in the NMI. Whether or not we have experienced >> >>> people who want to participate is a valuable indicator in >> itself, >> >>> don't you agree? (I don't buy the well-known argument that >> those >> >>> who are willing to get involved do this for career >> purposes.) >> >>> Jeanette >> >>> >> >>> On 20 November 2014 11:49:06 CET, Ian Peter >> >>> >> >> >> wrote: >> >>>> Thanks Nnenna. >> >>>> >> >>>> Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate >> differences of >> >>>> opinion. >> >>>> >> >>>> Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have >> many others. >> >>>> It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was >> >>>> reciprocated. >> >>>> >> >>>> The most substantial side effect for civil society >> discourse when >> >>>> someones personal opinion is attacked rather than respected >> is that >> >>>> people stop expressing themselves for fear of being >> attacked. It >> >>>> would >> >>>> be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing points of >> view. And >> >>>> some voices have already been silenced on this issue. >> >>>> >> >>>> We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we >> can >> >>>> agree to >> >>>> respect differences of opinion. >> >>>> >> >>>> Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to >> building >> >>>> APC as “ an international network and non profit >> organisation that >> >>>> wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet >> to improve >> >>>> our lives and create a more just world”. No, she is not >> >>>> abandoning the >> >>>> pursuit of social justice. >> >>>> >> >>>> Ian Peter >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> From: Nnenna Nwakanma >> >>>> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM >> >>>> To: michael gurstein >> >>>> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best >> Bits >> >>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate >> in >> >>>> NETmundial Initiative - RFC >> >>>> >> >>>> Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning >> to amaze me >> >>>> the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a >> shot, it is >> >>>> not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being >> >>>> construed as >> >>>> abandoning the pursuit of social justice? >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> If there was a human being who fought for social justice, >> it was >> >>>> Nelson >> >>>> Mandela. And it is him who said: >> >>>> "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to >> work with >> >>>> your >> >>>> enemy. Then he becomes your partner." >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> I will rest my case for now >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Nnenna >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because >> the NMI >> >>>> offers >> >>>> some possibility, however remote for the advancement of >> human rights, >> >>>> you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the >> pursuit of >> >>>> social justice. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> M >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> >> >>>> > > >> >>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> >> >>>> > >] On Behalf Of Anriette >> >>>> Esterhuysen >> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM >> >>>> To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma >> >>>> Cc: Governance; Best Bits >> >>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate >> in >> >>>> NETmundial Initiative - RFC >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Dear all >> >>>> >> >>>> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is >> consulting our >> >>>> members about it at present. We have been really busy in >> APC with >> >>>> project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the >> African >> >>>> School on >> >>>> IG, so apologies for not participating. >> >>>> >> >>>> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian >> colleagues. I have >> >>>> also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense >> that while >> >>>> there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth >> giving the >> >>>> process a try. >> >>>> >> >>>> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was >> excellent, >> >>>> and I feel that having them in place has put us in a >> stronger >> >>>> position. >> >>>> I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the >> process is >> >>>> legitimate and clear. >> >>>> >> >>>> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit >> differently >> >>>> from how >> >>>> Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite >> as 'black >> >>>> and white'. >> >>>> >> >>>> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong >> concerns we >> >>>> expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch >> in late >> >>>> August have actually been addressed. >> >>>> >> >>>> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked >> more >> >>>> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the >> process and >> >>>> its mechanisms. >> >>>> >> >>>> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I >> believe we >> >>>> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental >> >>>> spaces, at >> >>>> national level, and through the IGF. This might sound >> pretty >> >>>> naive to >> >>>> many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to >> inclusive >> >>>> democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation >> is through >> >>>> closer connections between multistakeholder and >> intergovernmental >> >>>> processes and mechanisms. >> >>>> >> >>>> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. >> >>>> >> >>>> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI >> with the >> >>>> following: >> >>>> >> >>>> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to >> us >> >>>> - a limited timeframe >> >>>> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we >> assess >> >>>> whether we >> >>>> continue or not >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to >> link it >> >>>> closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits >> meeting to >> >>>> get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess >> whether our >> >>>> particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to >> >>>> influence the >> >>>> process and whether it meets the criteria important to us. >> >>>> >> >>>> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process >> that >> >>>> turns >> >>>> out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth >> >>>> taking, and >> >>>> we can always withdraw. >> >>>> >> >>>> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most >> >>>> progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect >> human >> >>>> rights >> >>>> inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling >> out. I >> >>>> think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved >> >>>> through the >> >>>> NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think >> about, and >> >>>> implement, internet governance. >> >>>> >> >>>> Anriette >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Dear all, >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could >> perhaps >> >>>> shed >> >>>> some light on why their government has decided to support >> this >> >>>> initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be >> very >> >>>> helpful? I >> >>>> have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, >> and can't >> >>>> help but wonder whether I'm missing something here. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still >> not in >> >>>> favour >> >>>> of civil society networks giving this their stamp of >> approval (though >> >>>> as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual >> organisations >> >>>> who want to participate to continue doing so and report >> back to the >> >>>> wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by >> the >> >>>> Brazilian >> >>>> government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a >> new power >> >>>> centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have >> already >> >>>> given >> >>>> themselves some fixed seats. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and >> committee >> >>>> means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would >> "foster" >> >>>> clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know >> many >> >>>> others >> >>>> on this list too) have already been contacted by the >> Governance >> >>>> Lab at >> >>>> NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map >> that >> >>>> would >> >>>> be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not >> to >> >>>> feel like >> >>>> the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to >> rubberstamp >> >>>> things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them, >> >>>> somehow the >> >>>> structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a >> legitimacy >> >>>> that >> >>>> they would not have had without. An unwise use of our >> power, I would >> >>>> say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is >> something that a >> >>>> representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an >> informal >> >>>> conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, >> such as >> >>>> that map, might have value, but about the structure as a >> whole, I am >> >>>> not so certain) >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start >> exploring >> >>>> the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work >> suggested by >> >>>> Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what >> they're >> >>>> thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves >> and take it >> >>>> forward. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks and best, >> >>>> >> >>>> Anja >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma >> >> >>>> >> >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially >> African Civil >> >>>> Society members here. >> >>>> >> >>>> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is >> okay to >> >>>> table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation >> may be >> >>>> withdrawn if XYZ is not met. >> >>>> >> >>>> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in >> Africa, I >> >>>> dont think we should miss out. >> >>>> >> >>>> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to >> >>>> participate. >> >>>> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were >> already very >> >>>> interested in the NMI. >> >>>> >> >>>> I see it is okay if one network or list or platform >> decides NOT to >> >>>> participate but we cannot ask others not to. >> >>>> >> >>>> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating >> people. >> >>>> And at >> >>>> the same time, saying that it is important for African S to >> >>>> participate. >> >>>> >> >>>> All for now >> >>>> >> >>>> Nnenna >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I >> The Global >> >>>> Journal > >> >>>> > >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Jeremy, >> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks for your email. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but >> as we >> >>>> both do >> >>>> not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be >> wise to >> >>>> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in >> real >> >>>> politics. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of >> better effect >> >>>> and impact. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of >> observers or >> >>>> participants is that the initiative has more than a >> troubling set of >> >>>> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall >> confusion. It >> >>>> looks >> >>>> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate >> grouping of a >> >>>> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, >> and >> >>>> friends >> >>>> with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the >> obvious >> >>>> tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a >> consultant >> >>>> for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the >> partition >> >>>> behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always >> call some >> >>>> troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke >> to cross a >> >>>> street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what >> is at stake >> >>>> such as >> >>>> >> >>>> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that >> the US >> >>>> refused to discuss mass surveillance? >> >>>> >> >>>> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep >> maturing >> >>>> and growing? >> >>>> >> >>>> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this >> topic, >> >>>> insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't >> encryption >> >>>> part of >> >>>> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, >> in Sao >> >>>> Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? >> Mass >> >>>> surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us. >> >>>> >> >>>> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour >> against the EU >> >>>> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in >> my >> >>>> view, that >> >>>> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the >> simple links >> >>>> they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good >> debate for >> >>>> CS. >> >>>> >> >>>> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More >> important >> >>>> than IANA for example? >> >>>> >> >>>> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas >> when it >> >>>> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the >> ICANN is >> >>>> saying >> >>>> the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can >> we help >> >>>> ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? >> Looking at all >> >>>> the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively >> impressed with >> >>>> their >> >>>> innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical >> corps. They >> >>>> also create more "values". >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. >> >>>> Nevertheless, >> >>>> CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant >> of the >> >>>> weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not >> to blame >> >>>> JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone >> today. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN >> handle CS in a >> >>>> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had >> to twist >> >>>> their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to >> simply >> >>>> get it >> >>>> not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" >> not to go >> >>>> directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions >> when >> >>>> launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they >> keep >> >>>> creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, >> advisory >> >>>> boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we >> all >> >>>> cry. We >> >>>> are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, >> have a >> >>>> debate >> >>>> and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, >> citizens and >> >>>> corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing >> >>>> asymmetry we >> >>>> live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and >> our >> >>>> fellow >> >>>> citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do >> that you do >> >>>> not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and >> confront the >> >>>> realities that are taking away our rights. This is what >> should be >> >>>> done, >> >>>> now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate >> about the >> >>>> comfortable sofas of the WEF. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own >> mandate. >> >>>> JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and >> reaching more and >> >>>> more people. We should not care about that. We should care >> about >> >>>> having >> >>>> a collective action that would oblige governments, corps >> and the >> >>>> current mandarins to take more progressive steps. >> Multistakeholderism >> >>>> when it comes to convene and consult many participants is >> certainly >> >>>> nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put >> in our >> >>>> mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at >> least >> >>>> on the >> >>>> public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders >> had to go >> >>>> through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone >> nowhere. >> >>>> Only >> >>>> a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical >> issues doesn't >> >>>> equate a political model. It could work, but then it would >> lead >> >>>> to some >> >>>> social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor >> enough, >> >>>> our bias >> >>>> is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no >> corporation, no >> >>>> barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic >> >>>> concern (to >> >>>> avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into >> >>>> rationales >> >>>> as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or >> lunatics. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as >> civil >> >>>> society participants if we do not go after unity. And we >> all >> >>>> agree that >> >>>> we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do >> not have >> >>>> hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money >> in the >> >>>> debate. That would be fair. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> JC >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The >> Global >> >>>> Journal > >> >>>> > >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first >> email. >> >>>> On a >> >>>> personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about >> the "dumping >> >>>> on civil society colleagues" you are referring to, >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate >> blog >> post >> >>>> about >> >>>> this at igfwatch.org >> , because JNC’s >> >>>> pathologies are off-topic for this >> >>>> list. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I >> do listen >> >>>> to non JNC members: >> >>>> >> >>>> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to >> spread >> >>>> Internet Governance more evenly across the developing >> world". >> >>>> (Ask Drew >> >>>> Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what >> is the WIB >> >>>> Initiative) >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from >> some >> >>>> quarters to create a "UN Security Council” >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, >> ... Fadi >> >>>> Chehadé: ... >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> None of these statements support the characterisation of >> the >> >>>> Initiative >> >>>> as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for >> global >> [Internet] >> >>>> governance”. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Based on these official and public statement, I can only >> read JNC >> >>>> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC >> reluctance to >> >>>> participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might >> be to >> >>>> blunt) >> >>>> of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are >> owners of >> >>>> what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due >> reserves by >> >>>> different participants. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the >> NETmundial >> Initiative >> >>>> (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the >> NETmundial >> >>>> meeting. On this much we agree. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that >> convoy ... >> >>>> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious >> concerns >> >>>> seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives >> presented by the >> >>>> WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part >> personally I >> >>>> certainly have >> >>>> >> (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). >> >>>> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the >> NETmundial >> >>>> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the >> motives of >> >>>> other civil society groups and falsely attributing them >> with their >> >>>> endorsement of the Initiative. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my >> rant >> >>>> which was >> >>>> sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently >> received, off >> >>>> list, two emails in support, as well as one against). >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the >> BestBits list): >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail >> right now >> >>>> because I am speaking at a conference today and will be >> boarding a >> >>>> flight a few hours later. But I write this brief response >> just >> >>>> because >> >>>> you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - >> I’m not. >> >>>> Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions >> >>>> rather than >> >>>> me monopolising the conversation. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> >> >>>> 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 :: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >> > >. >> >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >> > >. >> >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> >> >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> >>>> The Internet Democracy Project >> >>>> >> >>>> +91 9899028053 >> | @anjakovacs >> >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> ____________________________________________________________You >> >>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To >> >> >>>> > > unsubscribe or change >> >>>> your settings, >> >>>> visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -- `````````````````````````````````anriette >> esterhuysenexecutive >> >>>> directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box >> 29755, >> >>>> melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org >> >> >>>> > > >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >> > >. >> >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my >> brevity. >> >>> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> > > >> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>> >> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>> >> >>> Translate this email: >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> > >. >> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Renata Avila * >> >> Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want >> >> Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer >> >> +44 7477168593 (UK) >> >> >> >> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, >> Washington >> >> D.C. 20005 USA **| **www.webfoundation.org >> * >> >> * | Twitter: @webfoundation* >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> . >> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Renata Avila * >> Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want >> Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer >> +44 7477168593 (UK) >> >> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington >> D.C. 20005 USA **| **www.webfoundation.org* >> * | Twitter: @webfoundation* >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From compsoftnet at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 18:19:58 2014 From: compsoftnet at gmail.com (Akinremi Peter Taiwo) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 00:19:58 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <1136161679.7127.1416476339066.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k07> Message-ID: Dear all, If the eyes did not see, mouth will not talk. Others who disagreed have their reasons and those who are in favour have their reasons. But wisdom is the key in this situation. Civil society need to have one voice in order to participate but I would like us to participate. I would suggest dialogue between all the civil society for mutual understand if time is still on our side. Cheers Peter On Nov 20, 2014 9:32 PM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK > wrote: > >> Dear Anriette >> >> I'm profoundly disappointed to see APC rallying the WEF controlled NMI >> process. >> >> >> >> I thought that APC would have more regards for ethics in the IS (AL C-10 >> of the GAP !), and that it would be able to resist the gregarian instinct >> of other organisations and (very ) ambitious "CS" people. Coming from the >> "South" and particularly from Africa, this tropism towards business with >> all its >> anti-governmental/anti state beheaviour is truly shoccking. >> >> From reading your posts over time, I have understood you have an > extensive experience of Africa -- or at least with some place(s) in Africa. > But I wonder, though, what makes you believe (as it appears in your latter > sentence above) that Africans should be more particularly sensitive about > the " > anti-governmental/anti state beheaviour" of business (so much so that it > is shocking when they --Africans-- aren't, or appear not to be.) I > understand what can be bad about such business behavior you're decrying, at > least based on the example of tax evasion you've referenced. My point is > that singling out of Africans (well, I can even concede that you meant to > address only African CS) and the implication that they should all share the > same incentives and that you know what those incentives are or should be. > > My first reaction to that is this. Your state/government (which I > understand to be that of France) is more of value to you than my > state/government (of Togo) is to me; you enjoy more protections and more > services from your government than I do from mine. Currently, I can't even > enjoy the guaranty of a minimum 512 Kbps bandwidth in my country although > it is located on the coastline of the Atlantic Ocean where plenty of > capacity has been built out over the last 10 years in the form of submarine > optical fiber cable (by the private sector, mind you, and yes, because they > want to make profit.) Currently I can't operate properly at the level I > would like to if I decide to settle in my country, as I would want to. This > situation is not due to business but to my own government which is dragging > its feet to provide the country with a landing point for the fiber and is > holding on to backward policies (eg, scarce, costly and slow satellite > connectivity.) > > Secondly, governments themselves get in cahoots with big business. I just > recall how previous governments in Nigeria were fine with oil business > polluting the Niger delta while hanging activist Ken Saro-Wiwa for > protesting about it. And I'm sure you know that the French government use > their power position with governments in francophone Africa to ensure sweet > and even monopolistic deals in favor of French big business. > > Those are facts, and I'm just saying. Before some people here jump to the > conclusion that they now know where I come down on this, let me just say > that so far I may have been known for a lot of things, but a big business > champion is certainly not one of them (and I have my share of criticism for > business.) My point is that in this manicheism we indulge in, no one is > really clean (and your manicheism doesn't have to be my manicheism, as we > are all likely to have that urge for simplification.) > > Best, > > Mawaki > > > >> Tax evasion is a model of WEF "governance", just for giving one example, >> and this is depriving states and governments of thousends billion dollars >> revenue ! Especially in Africa. In your enthousiasm to join the WEF >> bandwagon, did you (and APC) forgot this fact ? APC is bringing WSIS-CS >> into disrepute. >> >> Where is our spirit and our commitment of Geneva, when CS was strong >> enough to resist the pressure from governments and issued its own >> Declaration? >> >> >> >> Jean-Louis Fullsack >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Message du 20/11/14 08:16 >> > De : "Anriette Esterhuysen" >> > A : "Anja Kovacs" , "Nnenna Nwakanma" < >> nnenna75 at gmail.com> >> > Copie à : "Governance" , "Best Bits" < >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >> > Objet : Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in >> NETmundial Initiative - RFC >> >> > >> >Dear all >> > >> > I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our >> members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with project >> meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on IG, so >> apologies for not participating. >> > >> > Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have >> also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there >> are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process a >> try. >> > >> > I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, >> and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position. I >> also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is legitimate >> and clear. >> > >> > I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how >> Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and >> white'. >> > >> > My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we >> expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August >> have actually been addressed. >> > >> > I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more >> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its >> mechanisms. >> > >> > But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we >> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at >> national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to many >> but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive democratic >> multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through closer >> connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental processes and >> mechanisms. >> > >> > I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. >> > >> > My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the >> following: >> > >> > - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us >> > - a limited timeframe >> > - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we >> continue or not >> > >> > >> > My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it >> closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to get >> together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our particpation >> has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the process and >> whether it meets the criteria important to us. >> > >> > This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns >> out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, and we >> can always withdraw. >> > >> > Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most >> progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights >> inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I think >> that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the >> NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and >> implement, internet governance. >> > >> > Anriette >> > >> > >> > >> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> > >> >> Dear all, >> >> > >> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed >> some light on why their government has decided to support this initiative, >> and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I have had great >> respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't help but wonder >> whether I'm missing something here. >> >> > >> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour of >> civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though as >> earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations who want >> to participate to continue doing so and report back to the wider >> community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian >> government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power >> centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given >> themselves some fixed seats. >> >> > >> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee means >> seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" clearly are >> already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others on this list >> too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at NYU to give >> feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would be developed >> under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like the only thing >> we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp things that would >> happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the structure and the >> initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that they would not have >> had without. An unwise use of our power, I would say (that they would go >> ahead without us anyway is something that a representative from the WEF >> made clear enough to me in an informal conversation in October. Some of the >> individual initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the >> structure as a whole, I am not so certain) >> >> > >> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring the >> constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by Amelia and >> others. I would love to hear more about what they're thinking, and how we >> could operationalize this ourselves and take it forward. >> >> > >> Thanks and best, >> Anja >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >> > >>> >>> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil >>> Society members here. >>> > >>> > >>> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to table >>> our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be withdrawn if XYZ >>> is not met. >>> > >>> > I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I >>> dont think we should miss out. >>> > >>> > >>> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate. >>> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very >>> interested in the NMI. >>> > >>> > >>> I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to >>> participate but we cannot ask others not to. >>> > >>> > Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And >>> at the same time, saying that it is important for African S to participate. >>> > >>> > >>> All for now >>> > >>> > Nnenna >>> > >>> >>> > >>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >>> Journal wrote: >>> > >>> >>>> Jeremy, >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for your email. >>>> >>>> > >>>> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do >>>> not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to >>>> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real politics. >>>> >>>> > >>>> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect >>>> and impact. >>>> >>>> > >>>> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or >>>> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of >>>> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks >>>> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a >>>> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends with >>>> deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics behind >>>> all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my >>>> life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of that >>>> smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie" >>>> when you need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple >>>> line. No, let's stay on what is at stake such as >>>> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US >>>> refused to discuss mass surveillance? >>>> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing >>>> and growing? >>>> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, >>>> insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of >>>> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao Paulo, >>>> then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass surveillance has >>>> nothing to do with IG they told us. >>>> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU >>>> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that >>>> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links they >>>> assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for CS. >>>> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important >>>> than IANA for example? >>>> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it >>>> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying the >>>> political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help ourselves to >>>> have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are >>>> currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their innovative >>>> abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They also create more >>>> "values". >>>> >>>> > >>>> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless, >>>> CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the weakness >>>> that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame JNC or anyone >>>> else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today. >>>> >>>> > >>>> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a >>>> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist their >>>> arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it not that >>>> bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go directly after >>>> the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when launching an open, honest, >>>> transparent debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their >>>> committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is critical. "Please >>>> energize me! should we all cry. We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. >>>> >>>> > >>>> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate >>>> and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and >>>> corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we live >>>> in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow citizens, >>>> we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do not need any >>>> WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the realities that are >>>> taking away our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of >>>> wasting our time and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of >>>> the WEF. >>>> >>>> > >>>> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. >>>> JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and more >>>> people. We should not care about that. We should care about having a >>>> collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the current >>>> mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes >>>> to convene and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has often >>>> been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When >>>> it comes to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply >>>> doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, they >>>> would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other >>>> few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It could work, >>>> but then it would lead to some social disaster, a disruption that would >>>> unleash violence. >>>> >>>> > >>>> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias >>>> is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no >>>> barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to >>>> avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales as >>>> long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics. >>>> >>>> > >>>> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil >>>> society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that we >>>> should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have hidden >>>> agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the debate. That >>>> would be fair. >>>> >>>> > >>>> JC >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >>>> Journal wrote: >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On >>>> a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on >>>> civil society colleagues" you are referring to, >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post about >>>> this at igfwatch.org, because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic for this >>>> list. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen >>>> to non JNC members: >>>> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread >>>> Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew >>>> Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB >>>> Initiative) >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some >>>> quarters to create a "UN Security Council” >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi >>>> Chehadé: ... >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> None of these statements support the characterisation of the >>>> Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global >>>> [Internet] governance”. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC >>>> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to >>>> participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of >>>> the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of >>>> what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different >>>> participants. >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative >>>> (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial >>>> meeting. On this much we agree. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... >>>> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns seen >>>> in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN >>>> and CGIbr. >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I >>>> certainly have ( >>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). >>>> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial >>>> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of other >>>> civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their endorsement of >>>> the Initiative. >>>> >>>> > >>>> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was >>>> sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off list, >>>> two emails in support, as well as one against). >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now >>>> because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a flight a >>>> few hours later. But I write this brief response just because you >>>> suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not. Anyway, >>>> others can respond to the balance of your questions rather than me >>>> monopolising the conversation. >>>> >>>> > >>>> -- >>>> 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 :: >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> > >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> > The Internet Democracy Project >> > >> > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> > www.internetdemocracy.in >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> > >> >> -- >> ````````````````````````````````` >> anriette esterhuysen >> executive director >> association for progressive communications >> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Nov 20 18:33:00 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 15:33:00 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <546E2B0E.6020708@cafonso.ca> References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <546E2B0E.6020708@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: > The ought to be some limits to having to read silly conclusions like > this one. Carlos When the NMI was initially launched in Aug 2014, you have publicly said that "The WEF is a very inadequate venue for this kind of practice" I suspected that this statement had something to do with how progressive civil society views the WEF, with issues of neoliberalism, social justice, etc being central to such viewing... (Please let me know if I judged wrong.) But suddenly you seem to consider any statement asserting that joining a WEF based governance initiative could be seen as a jettisoning social justice considerations as being silly beyond limits, which frankly surprises me. So, what happened between Aug and now that makes you change your views so drastically. Just bec WEF has sought to soften the blows of the criticism it faced by co-opting an IG related agency of one developing country (regrettable the one which have us the World Social Forum with the direct purpose of challenging the WEF's worldview) . Should bec of that one fact the rest of the world stop saying what you were saying a few months back? parminder > > --c.a. > > On 11/20/14 08:13, michael gurstein wrote: >> So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI offers >> some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, >> you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of social >> justice. >> >> M >> >> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Anriette >> Esterhuysen >> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM >> *To:* Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma >> *Cc:* Governance; Best Bits >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in >> NETmundial Initiative - RFC >> >> Dear all >> >> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our >> members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with >> project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on >> IG, so apologies for not participating. >> >> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have >> also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there >> are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process >> a try. >> >> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, >> and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position. >> I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is >> legitimate and clear. >> >> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how >> Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and >> white'. >> >> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we >> expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August >> have actually been addressed. >> >> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more >> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its >> mechanisms. >> >> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we >> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at >> national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to >> many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive >> democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through >> closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental >> processes and mechanisms. >> >> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. >> >> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the >> following: >> >> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us >> - a limited timeframe >> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we >> continue or not >> >> >> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it >> closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to >> get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our >> particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the >> process and whether it meets the criteria important to us. >> >> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns >> out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, and >> we can always withdraw. >> >> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive, >> to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive >> processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I think that >> backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial >> would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement, >> internet governance. >> >> Anriette >> >> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps >> shed some light on why their government has decided to support this >> initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very >> helpful? I have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the >> past, and can't help but wonder whether I'm missing something here. >> >> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in >> favour of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval >> (though as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual >> organisations who want to participate to continue doing so and >> report back to the wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if >> backed by the Brazilian government, is just not the place I want to >> see emerge as a new power centre in Internet governance - even less >> so as they have already given themselves some fixed seats. >> >> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee >> means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" >> clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many >> others on this list too) have already been contacted by the >> Governance Lab at NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial >> Solutions map that would be developed under the flag of the >> NMI. It's difficult not to feel like the only thing we and others >> would be doing is simply to rubberstamp things that would happen >> anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the structure and the >> initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that they would not >> have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would say (that they >> would go ahead without us anyway is something that a representative >> from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal conversation in >> October. Some of the individual initiative, such as that map, might >> have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am not so certain) >> >> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start >> exploring the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work >> suggested by Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what >> they're thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and >> take it forward. >> >> Thanks and best, >> >> Anja >> >> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma > > wrote: >> >> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil >> Society members here. >> >> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to >> table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be >> withdrawn if XYZ is not met. >> >> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, >> I dont think we should miss out. >> >> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to >> participate. From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons >> were already very interested in the NMI. >> >> I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to >> participate but we cannot ask others not to. >> >> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And >> at the same time, saying that it is important for African S to >> participate. >> >> All for now >> >> Nnenna >> >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The >> Global Journal > > wrote: >> >> Jeremy, >> >> Thanks for your email. >> >> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we >> both do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply >> be wise to terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we >> are in real politics. >> >> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better >> effect and impact. >> >> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or >> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling >> set of definitions, expectations and leading to an overall >> confusion. It looks more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to >> illegitimate grouping of a wealthy elite (the three players of >> NMI have deep pockets, and friends with deeper pockets). I am >> not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics behind all their >> gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my >> life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of >> that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers >> from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a >> street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at >> stake such as >> >> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the >> US refused to discuss mass surveillance? >> >> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep >> maturing and growing? >> >> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, >> insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't >> encryption part of the mass surveillance issue? So then why to >> please the US, in Sao Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really >> go after it? Mass surveillance has nothing to do with IG they >> told us. >> >> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against >> the EU decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in >> my view, that search engines are touching at personal data, >> beyond the simple links they assembled in their result pages? >> This is a real good debate for CS. >> >> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More >> important than IANA for example? >> >> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when >> it comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN >> is saying the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How >> can we help ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS >> minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am >> positively impressed with their innovative abilities, much more >> powerful than classical corps. They also create more "values". >> >> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. >> Nevertheless, CS should really act differently. The NMI story is >> relevant of the weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and >> this is not to blame JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis >> wrote someone today. >> >> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS >> in a satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had >> to twist their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, >> to simply get it not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the >> 'nice guys" not to go directly after the right ideas, proposals >> and suggestions when launching an open, honest, transparent >> debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their >> committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is >> critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. We are all >> losing. Terrifying, I would say. >> >> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a >> debate and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, >> citizens and corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the >> growing asymmetry we live in since the mid-nineties? In the face >> of History, and our fellow citizens, we are failing, because CS >> is not united. To do that you do not need any WEF. You only need >> to trust, share, and confront the realities that are taking away >> our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of wasting >> our time and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas >> of the WEF. >> >> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own >> mandate. JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and >> reaching more and more people. We should not care about that. We >> should care about having a collective action that would oblige >> governments, corps and the current mandarins to take more >> progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes to convene >> and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has often >> been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS >> narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on the >> public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had >> to go through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone >> nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other few guys >> technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It could >> work, but then it would lead to some social disaster, a >> disruption that would unleash violence. >> >> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, >> our bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no >> corporation, no barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound >> democratic concern (to avoid another asymmetric wars), and we >> are ready to go into rationales as long as we are not >> characterized as psychotics or lunatics. >> >> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil >> society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all >> agree that we should pay more respect to each others, as long as >> we do not have hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting >> their money in the debate. That would be fair. >> >> JC >> >> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : >> >> >> >> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The >> Global Journal > > wrote: >> >> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first >> email. On a personal note, I would appreciate you to >> elaborate about the "dumping on civil society colleagues" >> you are referring to, >> >> Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog >> post >> about this at igfwatch.org , because >> JNC’s >> pathologies are off-topic for this list. >> >> >> >> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do >> listen to non JNC members: >> >> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread >> Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". >> (Ask Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of >> what is the WIB Initiative) >> >> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. >> >> >> >> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some >> quarters to create a "UN Security Council” >> >> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? >> >> >> >> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, >> ... Fadi Chehadé: ... >> >> None of these statements support the characterisation of the >> Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for >> global [Internet] governance”. >> >> >> >> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read >> JNC statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC >> reluctance to participate or endorse such following-up >> (hijacking might be to blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the >> WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what was stated ultimately in >> Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different participants. >> >> I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial >> Initiative (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking >> of the NETmundial meeting. On this much we agree. >> >> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that >> convoy ... should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges >> the serious concerns seen in the making of, and in the >> diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. >> >> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part >> personally I certainly have >> (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). >> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the >> NETmundial Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning >> the motives of other civil society groups and falsely >> attributing them with their endorsement of the Initiative. >> >> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant >> which was sent in a personal capacity (though I have >> subsequently received, off list, two emails in support, as well >> as one against). >> >> >> >> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits >> list): >> >> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now >> because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding >> a flight a few hours later. But I write this brief response >> just because you suggested in most recent mail that I was >> ignoring you - I’m not. Anyway, others can respond to the >> balance of your questions rather than me monopolising the >> conversation. >> >> -- >> >> 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 :: >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> . >> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ````````````````````````````````` >> >> anriette esterhuysen >> >> executive director >> >> association for progressive communications >> >> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa >> >> anriette at apc.org >> >> www.apc.org >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From amedinagomez at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 18:38:42 2014 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=C3=B3mez?=) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:38:42 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: +1 Mwenda Totally agree with your ideas. Support for such initiatives. It comes hard work and takes time and ongoing coordination. I think the door is open for a civil society in action 2014-11-20 10:59 GMT-05:00 Ginger Paque : > Thanks, Mwenda, I like this approach. I think it will be helpful. > Ginger > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > *Application deadline approaching: * Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy > with Internet Governance option http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD > > * ** * > > > On 20 November 2014 09:27, Byoung-il Oh wrote: > >> I agree! >> >> Byoungil Oh >> >> >> 2014-11-21 0:07 GMT+09:00 Mwendwa Kivuva : >> >>> I am happy there are no fence sitters. The best solution to end the >>> deadlock would be for Civil Society to give it's demands to NMI. Top >>> among them being:- >>> 1. Have a bottom up approach >>> 2. Include all stakeholders on equal footing. Not setting permanent >>> seats for CGI, ICANN, and WEF, then inviting everybody else to share >>> the remaining morsels. The current situation looks like carrots are >>> being dangled at CS. >>> 3. Debate and Redefine the principles and mandate on which NMI is >>> build upon with input from all. >>> >>> Staying totally away from NMI without giving dialogue a chance would >>> not help. Through CSCG, we can have a common statement sent out to NMI >>> stating our objections and expectations. >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> ______________________ >>> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya >>> L: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lordmwesh >>> B: http://lord.me.ke/ >>> T: 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 20 November 2014 02:47, Renata Avila >>> wrote: >>> > Dear all, >>> > >>> > I do not write often in this list, but, as I made it clear earlier at >>> the >>> > closing ceremony of Net Mundial Initiative, I am really concerned at >>> any >>> > effort adopting the Net Mundial ¨final¨ outcome as such, as final. Mrs. >>> > Rousseff started her crusade as an effort to tackle or at least, >>> somehow, >>> > regulate the pervasive surveillance from a group of governments >>> against all >>> > citizens. The result was a monster, the process was flawed, the >>> language >>> > against massive surveillance was weak, the introduction the language to >>> > please the copyright lobby really undermined solid, multiyear efforts >>> of the >>> > copyright reformists, too. Adopting such document, which so far is >>> just the >>> > result of an event outside the regular events around Internet >>> Governance is >>> > simply dangerous and silly, because in no way is a big victory for two >>> of >>> > the most important battles for the future of our knowledge societies, >>> of our >>> > free societies. A rigid exam, or even an exam at first sight of the >>> outcome >>> > document will show that it certainly fails to adopt the highest human >>> rights >>> > standards. >>> > >>> > The other issue was participation. As you can see in the brilliant >>> work by >>> > CIS India http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/index.html and the >>> attached >>> > maps, the voices from the global south, especially the poorest >>> countries >>> > from Africa and Latin America, where largely missing in the debates. >>> It was >>> > a North lead debate. It was a highly specialised debate, but, >>> paradoxically, >>> > with terrible flaws as there were Internet Governance experts, but, >>> except >>> > for the very good contributions of privacy experts like Jacob >>> Appelbaum and >>> > Copyright experts like Mishi, there was a vast lack of expertise, or at >>> > least no unity in key demands. >>> > >>> > So for me, in spite of the good faith of the Brazilians, any effort >>> that >>> > will marry with the Net Mundial Final Document as such, as final, is >>> flawed >>> > and has very little reform or even information potential for Civil >>> Society. >>> > Because we will not be asking for and promoting the adoption of higher >>> but >>> > lower standards, because the whole exercise lacks the voices and >>> concerns >>> > for the very actors which will be the most affected by the adoption of >>> such >>> > principles and roadmap as the one forward and because, again, very few >>> of >>> > those who are not represented will be able to afford the time and >>> resources >>> > that such initiative demands. So it will be again, a conversation >>> among few. >>> > >>> > There is also the public v. private interest here, but that issue has >>> been >>> > discussed extensively. My concern is basically the legitimacy we are >>> giving >>> > to such disastrous outcome, reaching and promoting a new low. >>> > >>> > * This is a personal opinion and in no way reflects the opinion or >>> position >>> > of the Web Foundation. >>> > >>> > Renata >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >>> > Journal wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Jeanette, >>> >> >>> >> Thanks for sharing Anja's skepticism. But Anja has expressed, more >>> >> importantly in my opinion, precise questions and given detailed >>> information >>> >> that ignited her skepticism. Where are the answers to her questions? >>> >> Anriette has made suggestions: where are the reactions? Talking about >>> >> relevant actors: is WEF a relevant actor? WEF is a network of >>> corporations, >>> >> big ones. Shouldn't civil society engage instead the smaller >>> entrepreneurs, >>> >> who creates much more jobs that the WEF membership? What is the >>> criteria to >>> >> say that it is worth to engage WEF rather than other groupings? WEF >>> has a >>> >> high media added-value. I agree, but then just ask for a tribune in >>> Davos, >>> >> to start with. >>> >> >>> >> You question the qualified and trustworthy candidates, fine, but you >>> >> totally ignore to answer the pending questions by many of us: what is >>> this >>> >> all about? Is this process worth the effort and, if NUY lab is already >>> >> elaborating the written conclusions of the initiative, do we need to >>> bother >>> >> to write the conclusions of it with any qualified and trustworthy >>> candidate. >>> >> If so, you should revise your judgement and buy the argument (no >>> copyright >>> >> on this!) that those who are willing to get involved are doing this >>> for >>> >> career purposes. Some have already got their career boosted at ICANN >>> and a >>> >> few other cool places, might feel that it would be smart for those >>> without a >>> >> comfortable seat to join the carrousel of vanities. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks >>> >> JC >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Le 20 nov. 2014 à 12:43, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : >>> >> >>> >> Hi all, I share Anja's skepticism but also Anriette's more principled >>> >> stance on participating in new processes. We need to communicate with >>> >> relevant actors in this field. Ultimately I think the pragmatic >>> question is >>> >> if we find a sufficient number of qualified and trustworthy >>> candidates who >>> >> are willing to contribute on our behalf in the NMI. Whether or not we >>> have >>> >> experienced people who want to participate is a valuable indicator in >>> >> itself, don't you agree? (I don't buy the well-known argument that >>> those who >>> >> are willing to get involved do this for career purposes.) >>> >> Jeanette >>> >> >>> >> On 20 November 2014 11:49:06 CET, Ian Peter >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Thanks Nnenna. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of >>> >> >>> >> opinion. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others. >>> >> >>> >> It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was >>> >> >>> >> reciprocated. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when >>> >> >>> >> someones personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that >>> >> >>> >> people stop expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It would >>> >> >>> >> be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And >>> >> >>> >> some voices have already been silenced on this issue. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can agree to >>> >> >>> >> respect differences of opinion. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building >>> >> >>> >> APC as " an international network and non profit organisation that >>> >> >>> >> wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve >>> >> >>> >> our lives and create a more just world". No, she is not abandoning the >>> >> >>> >> pursuit of social justice. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Ian Peter >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> From: Nnenna Nwakanma >>> >> >>> >> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM >>> >> >>> >> To: michael gurstein >>> >> >>> >> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits >>> >> >>> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in >>> >> >>> >> NETmundial Initiative - RFC >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me >>> >> >>> >> the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is >>> >> >>> >> not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as >>> >> >>> >> abandoning the pursuit of social justice? >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was >>> Nelson >>> >> >>> >> Mandela. And it is him who said: >>> >> >>> >> "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your >>> >> >>> >> enemy. Then he becomes your partner." >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> I will rest my case for now >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Nnenna >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein < >>> gurstein at gmail.com> >>> >> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> So Anriette, I'm taking from your argument that because the NMI offers >>> >> >>> >> some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, >>> >> >>> >> you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of >>> >> >>> >> social justice. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> M >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>> >> >>> >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette >>> >> >>> >> Esterhuysen >>> >> >>> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM >>> >> >>> >> To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma >>> >> >>> >> Cc: Governance; Best Bits >>> >> >>> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in >>> >> >>> >> NETmundial Initiative - RFC >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Dear all >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our >>> >> >>> >> members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with >>> >> >>> >> project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School >>> on >>> >> >>> >> IG, so apologies for not participating. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have >>> >> >>> >> also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while >>> >> >>> >> there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the >>> >> >>> >> process a try. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, >>> >> >>> >> and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger >>> position. >>> >> >>> >> I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is >>> >> >>> >> legitimate and clear. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how >>> >> >>> >> Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black >>> >> >>> >> and white'. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we >>> >> >>> >> expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late >>> >> >>> >> August have actually been addressed. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more >>> >> >>> >> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and >>> >> >>> >> its mechanisms. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we >>> >> >>> >> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at >>> >> >>> >> national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to >>> >> >>> >> many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive >>> >> >>> >> democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through >>> >> >>> >> closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental >>> >> >>> >> processes and mechanisms. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the >>> >> >>> >> following: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us >>> >> >>> >> - a limited timeframe >>> >> >>> >> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether >>> we >>> >> >>> >> continue or not >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it >>> >> >>> >> closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to >>> >> >>> >> get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our >>> >> >>> >> particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence >>> the >>> >> >>> >> process and whether it meets the criteria important to us. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns >>> >> >>> >> out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, >>> and >>> >> >>> >> we can always withdraw. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most >>> >> >>> >> progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human >>> rights >>> >> >>> >> inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I >>> >> >>> >> think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through >>> the >>> >> >>> >> NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and >>> >> >>> >> implement, internet governance. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Anriette >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Dear all, >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed >>> >> >>> >> some light on why their government has decided to support this >>> >> >>> >> initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? >>> I >>> >> >>> >> have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't >>> >> >>> >> help but wonder whether I'm missing something here. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour >>> >> >>> >> of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though >>> >> >>> >> as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations >>> >> >>> >> who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the >>> >> >>> >> wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the >>> Brazilian >>> >> >>> >> government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power >>> >> >>> >> centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already >>> given >>> >> >>> >> themselves some fixed seats. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee >>> >> >>> >> means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" >>> >> >>> >> clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others >>> >> >>> >> on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at >>> >> >>> >> NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would >>> >> >>> >> be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel >>> like >>> >> >>> >> the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp >>> >> >>> >> things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow >>> the >>> >> >>> >> structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that >>> >> >>> >> they would not have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would >>> >> >>> >> say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is something that a >>> >> >>> >> representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal >>> >> >>> >> conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, such as >>> >> >>> >> that map, might have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am >>> >> >>> >> not so certain) >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring >>> >> >>> >> the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by >>> >> >>> >> Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're >>> >> >>> >> thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it >>> >> >>> >> forward. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Thanks and best, >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Anja >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil >>> >> >>> >> Society members here. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to >>> >> >>> >> table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be >>> >> >>> >> withdrawn if XYZ is not met. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I >>> >> >>> >> dont think we should miss out. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate. >>> >> >>> >> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very >>> >> >>> >> interested in the NMI. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to >>> >> >>> >> participate but we cannot ask others not to. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And >>> at >>> >> >>> >> the same time, saying that it is important for African S to >>> >> >>> >> participate. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> All for now >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Nnenna >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >>> >> >>> >> Journal wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Jeremy, >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Thanks for your email. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both >>> do >>> >> >>> >> not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to >>> >> >>> >> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real >>> >> >>> >> politics. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect >>> >> >>> >> and impact. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or >>> >> >>> >> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of >>> >> >>> >> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It >>> looks >>> >> >>> >> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a >>> >> >>> >> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends >>> >> >>> >> with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious >>> >> >>> >> tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant >>> >> >>> >> for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the partition >>> >> >>> >> behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some >>> >> >>> >> troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a >>> >> >>> >> street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at stake >>> >> >>> >> such as >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US >>> >> >>> >> refused to discuss mass surveillance? >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing >>> >> >>> >> and growing? >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, >>> >> >>> >> insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part >>> of >>> >> >>> >> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao >>> >> >>> >> Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass >>> >> >>> >> surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU >>> >> >>> >> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, >>> that >>> >> >>> >> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links >>> >> >>> >> they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for >>> >> >>> >> CS. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important >>> >> >>> >> than IANA for example? >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it >>> >> >>> >> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying >>> >> >>> >> the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help >>> >> >>> >> ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all >>> >> >>> >> the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed with >>> their >>> >> >>> >> innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They >>> >> >>> >> also create more "values". >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless, >>> >> >>> >> CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the >>> >> >>> >> weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame >>> >> >>> >> JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a >>> >> >>> >> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist >>> >> >>> >> their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get >>> it >>> >> >>> >> not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go >>> >> >>> >> directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when >>> >> >>> >> launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep >>> >> >>> >> creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory >>> >> >>> >> boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. >>> We >>> >> >>> >> are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate >>> >> >>> >> and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and >>> >> >>> >> corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we >>> >> >>> >> live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow >>> >> >>> >> citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do >>> >> >>> >> not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the >>> >> >>> >> realities that are taking away our rights. This is what should be >>> done, >>> >> >>> >> now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about the >>> >> >>> >> comfortable sofas of the WEF. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. >>> >> >>> >> JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and >>> >> >>> >> more people. We should not care about that. We should care about >>> having >>> >> >>> >> a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the >>> >> >>> >> current mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism >>> >> >>> >> when it comes to convene and consult many participants is certainly >>> >> >>> >> nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put in our >>> >> >>> >> mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on >>> the >>> >> >>> >> public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had to go >>> >> >>> >> through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone nowhere. Only >>> >> >>> >> a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical issues doesn't >>> >> >>> >> equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead to >>> some >>> >> >>> >> social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our >>> bias >>> >> >>> >> is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no >>> >> >>> >> barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to >>> >> >>> >> avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales >>> >> >>> >> as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil >>> >> >>> >> society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree >>> that >>> >> >>> >> we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have >>> >> >>> >> hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the >>> >> >>> >> debate. That would be fair. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> JC >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >>> >> >>> >> Journal wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a >>> >> >>> >> personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping >>> >> >>> >> on civil society colleagues" you are referring to, >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Within the next few days I'm going to write a separate blog post about >>> >> >>> >> this at igfwatch.org, because JNC's pathologies are off-topic for >>> this >>> >> >>> >> list. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen >>> >> >>> >> to non JNC members: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread >>> >> >>> >> Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask >>> Drew >>> >> >>> >> Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB >>> >> >>> >> Initiative) >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some >>> >> >>> >> quarters to create a "UN Security Council" >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi >>> >> >>> >> Chehadé: ... >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> None of these statements support the characterisation of the >>> Initiative >>> >> >>> >> as in your letter as "being 'the' mechanism for global [Internet] >>> >> >>> >> governance". >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC >>> >> >>> >> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to >>> >> >>> >> participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) >>> >> >>> >> of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of >>> >> >>> >> what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by >>> >> >>> >> different participants. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> I've also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative >>> >> >>> >> (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial >>> >> >>> >> meeting. On this much we agree. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... >>> >> >>> >> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns >>> >> >>> >> seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the >>> >> >>> >> WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I >>> >> >>> >> certainly have >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> ( >>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles >>> ). >>> >> >>> >> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial >>> >> >>> >> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of >>> >> >>> >> other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their >>> >> >>> >> endorsement of the Initiative. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which >>> was >>> >> >>> >> sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off >>> >> >>> >> list, two emails in support, as well as one against). >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now >>> >> >>> >> because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a >>> >> >>> >> flight a few hours later. But I write this brief response just >>> because >>> >> >>> >> you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I'm not. >>> >> >>> >> Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions rather >>> than >>> >> >>> >> me monopolising the conversation. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> 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 :: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >> >>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >> >>> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> >> >>> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> >> >>> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >> >>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >> >>> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> >> >>> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> >> >>> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>> >> >>> >> The Internet Democracy Project >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>> >> >>> >> www.internetdemocracy.in >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________You >>> >> >>> >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >> >>> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To unsubscribe or change your settings, >>> >> >>> >> visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- `````````````````````````````````anriette esterhuysenexecutive >>> >> >>> >> directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755, >>> >> >>> >> melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >> >>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >> >>> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> >> >>> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> >> >>> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >>> >> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >> >>> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >> >>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Renata Avila >>> > Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want >>> > Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer >>> > +44 7477168593 (UK) >>> > >>> > World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington >>> D.C. >>> > 20005 USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Antonio Medina Gómez Presidente Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet presidencia at acui.co @amedinagomez Skype amedinagomez Celular 3118689626 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From caribe at entropia.blog.br Thu Nov 20 18:52:27 2014 From: caribe at entropia.blog.br (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Carlos_Rebello_Carib=E9?=) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 21:52:27 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: I agree with Kivuva. I can't imagine the reason to keep permanent seats at MNI, really, all seats must be changed,even though in two alternating cycles. Em 20/11/2014, às 21:38, Antonio Medina Gómez escreveu: > 2. Include all stakeholders on equal footing. Not setting permanent > seats for CGI, ICANN, and WEF, then inviting everybody else to share > the remaining morsels. The current situation looks like carrots are > being dangled at CS. -- João Carlos R. Caribé Consultor Skype joaocaribe (021) 9 8761 1967 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From compsoftnet at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 19:04:04 2014 From: compsoftnet at gmail.com (Akinremi Peter Taiwo) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 01:04:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for candidates to IGC co-coordinatorship In-Reply-To: References: <20141119171332.Horde.-ida3e_MOQXkL8blFMumEw1@www.ciencitec.com> <1416462995.71905.YahooMailBasic@web172503.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Would have love to embrace this opportunity but still considering the weight... On Nov 20, 2014 1:34 PM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: > Thanks Analia, your candidacy is noted. We will let you know in a few days > the information you will need to submit as part of your candidacy. > > Vincent, do you mean to run for the election in order to figure out > whether you'll get the chance? I'd encourage you to do so. Please confirm. > Thanks > > /Mawaki's droid agent > On Nov 20, 2014 10:52 AM, "Analia Aspis" wrote: > >> I would like to volunteer. I am trying to raise IG debate among my >> country Argentina, as well as regionally. I have activily participate in >> remote hub coordinatios as well as organizing student research group. >> Kind regards, >> Analía Aspis >> >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 2:56 AM, vincent solomon >> wrote: >> >>> I would love this opportunity but weather i get the chance is another >>> thing . >>> >>> >>> “Limitations live only in our minds. But if we use our imaginations, our >>> possibilities become limitless” >>> >>> NAME: VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA >>> CONTACT: +256 773307045 / +256 713307045 / +256 753307045 >>> EMAIL:aliama.vincent at cit.mak.ac.ug / vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk / >>> vinsoloster at gmail.com >>> Skype : vinsolo2 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------- >>> On Wed, 19/11/14, jfcallo at ciencitec.com wrote: >>> >>> Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT: Call for candidates to IGC >>> co-coordinatorship >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Mwendwa Kivuva" < >>> Kivuva at transworldafrica.com>, "Mawaki Chango" >>> Date: Wednesday, 19 November, 2014, 20:13 >>> >>> English >>> Mrs. And Gentlemen >>> I come >>> voluntarily to support these activities, I regret to say >>> that >>> for more than a year Chapter of >>> ISOC-Perú ago, has no activity, >>> despite >>> having reported to Ted Mooney on the discrimination of the >>> >>> current management, has not done anything , >>> I call upon the >>> International Community >>> of ISOC, to do something for Lima, Perú. >>> Thank you >>> Joseph F. Callo >>> Romero >>> Founder of ISOC-Perú >>> >>> Español >>> Sras. >>> y Señores >>> Me presento voluntariamente para >>> apoyar estas actividades, lamento >>> decir >>> que desde hace mas de un año el Capitulo de ISOC-Peru, no >>> tiene >>> actividad alguna, a pesar de haber >>> denunciado a Ted Mooney, sobre la >>> discriminación del actual directivo, no se ha >>> hecho nada, hago un >>> llamado a la >>> Comunidad Internacional de ISOC, para que haga algo por >>> >>> Lima, Perú. >>> Gracias >>> José F. Callo Romero >>> Fundador >>> de ISOC-Perú >>> >>> >>> Mwendwa Kivuva >>> escribió: >>> >>> > Thanks >>> Mawaki, >>> > >>> > Though it >>> would be a great experience being an IGC coordinator, >>> I'm >>> > not ready for the >>> responsibility this time round. Maybe after a year. >>> > If I take it, I risk spreading myself too >>> thin. >>> > >>> > Regards >>> > ______________________ >>> > Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya >>> > L: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lordmwesh >>> > B: http://lord.me.ke/ >>> > >>> T: 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 19 November 2014 06:12, Mawaki Chango >>> wrote: >>> >> Mwendwa, I got excited for >>> two reasons: 1) that there was a reply to this >>> >> thread, and 2) seeing your name and >>> thinking there we have a good candidate! >>> >> Oh well, I guess I'll have to be a >>> little more patient on this one. Thanks >>> >> for your nice words anyway. >>> >> >>> >> Mawaki >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:30 AM, >>> Mwendwa Kivuva >>> >> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks Mawaki, you did an >>> excellent job at the IGC with much energy >>> >>> and dedication. As we have seen >>> before, the work of the coordinator is >>> >>> not an easy one. >>> >>> >>> >>> We >>> salute you >>> >>> >>> >>> On 18/11/2014, Mawaki Chango >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Dear All, >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> > Now that the excitement of the new MAG is over it's >>> time for us at the >>> >>> > IGC >>> >>> > to have our own election. We >>> need to elect a second Co-coordinator. The >>> >>> > results of the elections for >>> new Co-coordinators a year ago gave Mawaki >>> >>> > a >>> >>> > one year term. As he already >>> suggested at several occasions including >>> >>> > during the election last >>> year, he is not in position to serve two more >>> >>> > years. In other words, Mawaki >>> does not intend to stand again. >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>> > We invite members of >>> the IGC to nominate candidates (please check with >>> >>> > them >>> >>> > first about their willingness >>> to serve), or to nominate themselves as a >>> >>> > co-coordinator to serve from >>> 2015-2017. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Nominations will be open >>> until 19th December, midnight UTC. >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> > Best regards, >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Mawaki Chango >>> >>> > Deirdre Williams >>> >>> > IGC Co-coordinators >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> ______________________ >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Inline Attachment Follows----- >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on >>> the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information >>> and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's >>> charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Nov 20 19:29:32 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 01:29:32 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <546E2B0E.6020708@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: > >> A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if > >> backed by the Brazilian government, is just not the place I want to > >> see emerge as a new power centre in Internet governance - even less > >> so as they have already given themselves some fixed seats. Please reread my mails of the time. Do you really think a few Civil Society activists and non-architect engineers from the IETF would reshape the world alone. There is only one way to lead the world: power and force. However, you do not want to manage to get it. Force is a better technology. This means competent, innovative, experienced work. Power is that technology to be used. This means political cooperation or financial support. As long as you do not want Libre, you do not want Govs and you do not want WEF, you can keep moaning. The situation is simple. It has not changed since August 22, 2012 (RFC 6852, IEEE, IAB, IETF, ISOC, W3C declaration). Either we stay with the old non-secure IETF technology that ICANN, Rosettanet, BRICS and WEF can do with. Or we rebuild a "secure internet" as partly demanded by IAB through a Libre/Civil Society coalition - not necessarily under the NSA/USCC. Our interest is NOT to dispute political ideas, not to arbitrate between ICANN/WEF and ISOC/IETF. Our interest is to intelligently look at our own IUsers interests. i.e. for a fail-safe plan four our net 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Nov 20 20:04:19 2014 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 01:04:19 +0000 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <1486537673.7522.1416390999726.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f29> <4D5FE9B9-60E9-4AE4-BC19-5A72B08E78A6@orange.fr> , Message-ID: If I may make a few comments, first on behalf of my dual national wife and kids ie Brazilian and US. So far take-away message from the way the NMI discussion is playing out on Best Bits and the governance list is: one half of their identity is understood to play in global Internet governance a significant role. And the other half gets critiqued from the left (JNC) and the technical (ISOC) community if it dares to presume to talk more about issues that after all were driven to some level of consensus...in Rio, with patronage of the Brazilian President. With ICANN playing a key role in bringing the parties together. As a 'pioneer' member of ISOC from way back in its founding days, and not Brazilian, I guess I should be fine with that myself. On other hand I was also engaged with ICANN even before its earliest days so I guess that makes me even more compromised to some : ) But I sill wonder if this is really the message cs wishes to send to the global south, that southern governments who dare to play also with power/world economy forces like WEF, are to speak only when spoken to. I recall all the angst and worry pre-NetMundial, and pre-WCIT and pre-Plenipot, and etc - the issue ultimately for me is going into any process that is - a process - and not a fore-ordained conclusion, we can't know what will come of it. Personally I would prefer if WEF and friends would invest more into IGF, as the Internet governance talkshop of all talkshops, but hey that's just me. If NMI is reduced to yet another talk shop except it is Brazilians in a co-lead role....this is extra-bad how? If Brazilians 'appropriate' the name of an event that happened...in Brazil...this is terrible how? ISOC and JNC and anyone else that wishes to ignore that talk and those recommendations can readily do so. I am not volunteering and don;t have time myself, but why - more talk/dialogue and yes even gasp recommendations on international Internet public policy issues would be a bad thing is unclear, at least to my (half-)Brazilian kids. Who may well be finding the tone of this whole conversation condescending and insulting. But of course I would not know myself, being from the hegemon of the north and all that. Lee PS: And...while this is going on, China can hold a 'world Internet summit' and invite selected cs folks and it is no big deal...and India boxes itself into and out of a Plenipot corner to no positive effect...while Putin can do what he wants....but if Brazil/cgi dare play with the big boys...ok got it. No further questions. Tudo bem! ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org on behalf of Akinremi Peter Taiwo Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 5:49 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative Well, I understand that this is a critical decision civil society need to make, as said before if civil society are not part of NMI and the platform turns to worth it, what will be our outcome? I think instead of having two voices, we should sit down together(meetings) and analysis and rub mind on the issues of NMI to understand each others perspectives while strategically plan for any negative outcome of NMI. This calls for wisdom, our presence is better than nothing for check and balance. Cheers!!! Peter On Nov 20, 2014 9:44 PM, "Deirdre Williams" > wrote: I asked in an earlier post whether civil society has been manoeuvred into a position in which choosing not to be involved becomes not really an option? As civil society we have a very broad range of perspective and therefore it is much more difficult for this group to act together rapidly, as ISOC has done, when the nature of the issue itself is still doubtful. Other people have already reminded us of the hesitation before the NETmundial meeting in April, and the enthusiasm (in general) which greeted the outcomes of that meeting, although there are still some reservations – Renata just shared hers. My sympathies lean towards a reluctance to provide legitimacy, but my common sense suggests the following: 1. As far as I can see the Netmundial Initiative will continue with or without us. 2. Civil Society is split now (and has been split for some time) so that any attempt at a boycott is likely to fail because it will be incomplete. 3. The invitation to join can be presented in such a way as to provide legitimacy even if not all of civil society agrees to accept. (This is what I meant by “manoeuvred” above.) 4. We have not been given a clear picture of what the initiative is – it may prove to be something that meets our approval – or not. 5. It is very important that any civil society representatives who join that committee should be people who go with an open mind. Those who disapprove are absenting themselves anyway; it would be better to have representatives who are initially neutral but open to be persuaded one way or the other. 6. Finally, should the initiative prove to be unacceptable, a well publicised walkout by the 5 civil society representatives (who are also representing “the world”) would be much easier to arrange and much more effective than a partial boycott before the meeting takes place. The discussion at the Geneva Internet Conference about the Netmundial Initiative yesterday morning (Wednesday 19th) was useful. On Tuesday during “Same issues, different perspectives: overcoming policy silos in privacy and data protection”, one of the afternoon sessions, Brian Trammell, Senior Researcher, Communication Systems Group, ETH Zurich, presenting the “technical” perspective, said of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) that members are volunteers who “participate as individuals”. This is also true of the Internet Governance Caucus, and essentially of civil society as a whole. One of the freedoms that our society tries to provide is the right of the individual to follow the dictates of her/his own conscience. My own choice is a pragmatic one. It should in no way be seen as a criticism of anyone else's point of view or decision. Deirdre On 20 November 2014 11:41, Mawaki Chango > wrote: Fellas, Some of us have raised questions about the views of the Brazilian party (CGI.br) in this NMI business. But I know they are in a delicate position and may be concerned to appear as judge and jury if they come out strong for a position (and we can expect which that position would be.) Flavio is not on the IGC list but he granted me the permission to forward to this list this message of his below, originally posted to the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN's GNSO. Best, Mawaki Fw: [NCSG-Discuss] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:55 AM, Flávio Rech Wagner > wrote: Robin I have been informed that the "transitional council" of the NMI - NETmundial Initiative (which contains representatives from ICANN, CGI.br and WEF and is provisory, until the 25 names of the permanent council have been defined) is having an intense dialogue with CSCG (the Civil Society Coordination Group) and, together, they shall come to a solution for appointing names to the council by consensus and fully respecting nominations from Civil Society. There is no intention whatsoever from the transitional council to indicate names in a closed, top-down manner and without full endorsement from CSCG. The transitional council also expects to achieve similar solutions for appointing names that will represent other stakeholder groups. Please notice that CGI.br (the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee), which is one of the entities proposing the NMI, would never agree with top-down, closed decisions that would strongly undermine CGI's legitimacy as a true bottom-up, multistakeholder body. CGI.br is completely committed to preserve the NETmundial principles in the implementation of the NMI. Please remember also that, when NETmundial was proposed by the end of 2013, all of us in the global Internet Governance (IG) community, because of lack of information, were puzzled about its organization and possible success and outcomes. But the global community faced the challenge and transformed a vague idea into a successful event, with a true multistakeholder organization, with very open and transparent processes, and with a final document that was achieved by rough consensus and approved governance principles that were praised by most of the stakeholders (including human rights and other principles that are extremely valued by Civil Society). So let's try to transform NMI, which is still also a vague idea, into something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG and that fully respects the principles enshrined in the NETmundial declaration. Flávio (NCUC member and member of the Board of CGI.br) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hindenburgo at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 20:26:29 2014 From: hindenburgo at gmail.com (Hindenburgo Pires) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 23:26:29 -0200 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi fellows, I am totally against IGC joining the NetMundial Initiative in WEF, for the reasons described in the Just Net Coalition' statement: http://justnetcoalition.org/NMI-neoliberal-caravan Regards, Hindenburgo Francisco Pires Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro Departamento de Geografia Humana *Sítio-web: http://www.cibergeo.org * 2014-11-18 9:32 GMT-02:00 Mawaki Chango : > Dear All, > > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't repeat the > background details. In the middle of the night last night, before hitting > the bed after a long and drawn out day playing catch-up with deadlines, I > saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI Transitional Committee's > reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, they are willing to let the CSCG vet CS > candidates to be part of the NMI Coordination Council. > > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership of CSCG > member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI process or not. I > believe this is the last step in the consultations we've been having (with > NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and with the membership of our > respective organizations.) After this we should be able to give a definite > answer, formulate a definite position about our participation in the NMI > process. > > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be brief. State > your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement and, if you care to > provide us with such, I would be grateful to you if you could keep your > supporting argument in one short paragraph (as we just want to take the > "temperature of the room" if you see what I mean.) > > Thank you for your understanding. > Best regards. > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Nov 20 20:38:35 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:38:35 +0900 Subject: [governance] World Internet Conference Day 3 - "Wuzhen Declaration" proposed Message-ID: Day 3 of World Internet Conference just started, am attending the "Internet Governance Forum" Here is the memo I am taking, real time if connection works https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vYdPeOrnWRuGbjbXStAeQHJ3BcbQ0j_ARw20eqcnuj0/edit Go to page 52 for Day 3. Now, early this morning an envelope was inserted under the door of my room. There was Draft Wuzhen Declaration - 2 pages in Chinese and English, each. It says in the attached cover letter, "During the Conference, many spakers and participants suggest that a Wuzhen declaration be released at the closing ceremony. If you want to make revision to it, please contact the organizing committee before 8 a.m. (to info at wicwuzhen.cn) I found this at 8:40! It was not there until 12 pm last night for sure. Anyway, here is the main points: After the preamble, We call on the international community to work together to build an international Internet governance system of multilateralism, democracy and transparency and a cyberspace of peace, security, openness and cooperation Then followed by these principles with 4 or 5 lines each, 1. Enhance cyberspace connectivity 2. Respect Internet sovereignty of all countries 3. Jointly safeguard cyber security 4, Jointly fight cyber terrorism 5. Advance development of Internet technology 6. Vigorously develop the Internet economy 7. Widely spread the positive energy 8. Dedicate to the healthy growth of young people 9. work for a cyberspace shared and governed by all There is no mention of Multistakholder, Human Rights, Free flow of information, among others. My first look. izumi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Nov 20 21:00:28 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 11:00:28 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Here is what I just sent to the organizing committee of the World Internet Conference. Izumi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Izumi AIZU Date: 2014-11-21 10:59 GMT+09:00 Subject: My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration To: Organizing Committee of World Internet Conference Dear Sir/madam, I have been enjoying the WIC so much. Thank you for creating and sharing this wonderful event. I agree with the theme - Internet governance for all - or Interconnected world shared and governed by all. I appreciate the open dialogue sessions. Now, to the Wuzhen Declaration, I would like to make following comments for the record as an active member of the Civil Society engaged in Internet Governance and Information Society issues and make my humble reservation. First, getting the draft in the middle of the night and the deadline of 8 am for any revision is impossible to accommodate. This is against the spirit of "shared and governed by all". Second, there is no mention of "Multistakeholder" process or approach which has been well accepted by most, if not all, of stakeholders at ICANN, IGF, and other international fora for Internet governance mechanisms. Even though there are a lot of room for improvement and reform, simply ignoring this principle from the declaration, in my view, will greatly discredit the value of our declaration. Also, there is no reference to WSIS Tunis Agenda, people-centered information society, that is a mistake. No mention of UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights also severely undermines the value and effect. There is too much emphasis on economic and technological potential of the Internet, but far less views expressed to social, human and cultural dimensions Internet will contribute. Following points are also observed: - Consensus is missing from international cooperation - Internet as an permissionless innovation environment - Accountable participation as part of cyber security activities - Advancement of Internet technology should build on global rough consensus of the engineering technical community (not politics) - Internet as an economy of growth and that China should play a bigger role to help developing countries from her experience With these reasons, I like to make my reservation on record. I also like to mention the statement we co-signed: "Community Statement Presented at Wuzhen Summit" http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141120_community_statement_presented_at_wuzhen_summit/ Thank you for your attention and understanding, I still remain committed and connected with your great effort. Izumi Aizu Senior Research Fellow and Professor, Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Fri Nov 21 00:17:25 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 13:17:25 +0800 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <3D1E1CA9-1F08-4EC0-891C-4C39E3953A0D@difference.com.au> Siva, there is a big difference between including WEF in the process, and having them run the process by their own rules. I *welcome* the involvement of WEF in open, participatory, multi-stakeholder spaces - they are in a good position to eloquently express some of the positions of the commercial sector. Often, commercial representatives within IG processes often represent small sectors of the commercial world with very strong biases towards particular issues (such as telcos and copyright cartels), WEF might be able to provide a broader commercial perspective, and maybe commercial representation in IG spaces might not be quite so dominated by a small cabal. And note, welcoming the involvement of such organisations is not the same as having sympathy for their policy positions and actions, simply I'd rather debate those positions in an open, transparent, multi-stakeholder fora, rather than have to battle covert lobbying and decision making in closed or opaque fora in which CS has no voice. But I *oppose* considering WEF processes as equivalent to open multi-stakeholder ones in legitimacy. WEFs own processes are not open, they are strictly gatekeepered. And they are commercial led processes, with commercial goals. WEF is, of course, welcome to keep doing those things, but such processes should not be considered legitimate means of producing multi-stakeholder transnational consensus. And this NMI process certainly started with assumptions that reflect the problems with WEF processes, such as choosing the CS sector representatives that the WEF wanted. So, yes, bringing in the WEF can be considered a positive in some ways - but not in the way the NMI process has gone so far. David On 19 Nov 2014, at 5:21 pm, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > Dear Guru, > > ​(You (Guru) said: ​WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated work also is structuring our participation in the information society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global surveillance > > ​If such as strong generalization of big business is to be accepted as fair and valid, then all those who subscribe to such a generalization may have to go back to the WSIS declarations and summarily exclude Business as a Stakeholder group, and then declare that Internet Governance ought to be a process with two stakeholder groups - Government + Civil Society. No, no, on second thoughts I see your reference to Snowden and USG+, so the Civil Society could exclude Government from Internet Governance, and declare that Internet Governance must be reinvented as a single stakeholder group process, with Civil Society as the only stakeholder group. > > Seriously, if WSIS had committed to build a "people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society​", what happens to inclusiveness and development with such a position on Big Business? ​ > > And, why this hatred for big business? Most progress in this world has happened because of enterprise, much more because of business than because of Government. Granted, some of the information technology big businesses have worked with Governments on surveillance designs, and even there, we do not know how of much of such cooperation came out of a desire for profit and how much of it was forced by arm-twisting or by milder pressures in so many subtle and imaginative ways. > > Irrespective of how WEF's role has been articulated at the moment, it is a very positive development to bring in the WEF. ​WEF participation suddenly expands business participation to a world of business outside the IT sector, so WEF's attention to IG issues might by itself act as a balancing influence within the corporate world, because many of these Big Businesses are Internet "users" themselves. ​Some of these Big Businesses are possibly charitable in unknown ways. What is needed here is strong support at the moment, and we could ​eventually ​work towards a greater balance across stakeholder groups.​ ​ > > Sivasubramanian M > > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Guru wrote: > Dear Mawaki > > I would like to cite from two sources: > > A. WSIS Declaration of Principles - http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html (the very first two clauses) > > 1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world*, *assembled in Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > 2. Our challenge* is to harness the potential of information and communication technology to promote the development goals of the Millennium Declaration, namely the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; achievement of universal primary education; promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women; reduction of child mortality; improvement of maternal health; to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring environmental sustainability; and development of global partnerships for development for the attainment of a more peaceful, just and prosperous world. We also reiterate our commitment to the achievement of sustainable development and agreed development goals, as contained in the Johannesburg Declaration and Plan of Implementation and the Monterrey Consensus, and other outcomes of relevant United Nations Summits. > > I now will cite from the WEF site - http://www.weforum.org/our-members > > Begin > Our Members > The World Economic Forum is a membership organization. Our Members comprise 1,000 of the world’s top corporations, global enterprises usually with more than US$ 5 billion in turnover. These enterprises rank among the top companies within their industry and play a leading role in shaping the future of their industry and region. Some of our Member companies join the Forum’s Strategic and Industry Partnership communities, which are designed to deepen their engagement with the Forum’s events, project and initiatives. The Forum’s Members are at the heart of all our activities. > End > > It is clear that WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated work also is structuring our participation in the information society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global surveillance, which helps them in their goals of political-economic domination / colonisation > > Participating in forums anchored in such a space will only legitimise their power. I am clear that IGC should not participate in the NMI. > > thanks and regards > Guru > > Gurumurthy Kasinathan > Director, IT for Change > In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC > www.ITforChange.Net| Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890 > http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum > > > On Tuesday 18 November 2014 05:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > > > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't > repeat > > > the background details. In the middle of the night last > night, before > > > hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing > catch-up with > > > deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI > > > Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, > they are > > > willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the > NMI > > > Coordination Council. > > > > > > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership > of CSCG > > > member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI > process or > > > not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations > we've been > > > having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and > with the > > > membership of our respective organizations.) After this we > should be > > > able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position > about > > > our participation in the NMI process. > > > > > > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be > brief. > > > State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement > and, if > > > you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you > if you > > > could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph > (as we > > > just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see > what I > > > mean.) > > > > > > Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. > > > > > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Fri Nov 21 00:21:16 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 13:21:16 +0800 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <149c7681318.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <149c7681318.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <90B1BAF8-41AC-4305-AF25-3EDA377080A9@difference.com.au> On 19 Nov 2014, at 5:35 pm, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Even within civil society, include only those sections of civil society that still use jargon like neoliberal > As I said on another list recently, that particular bit of jargon irritates me no end. In part because you'd hope that some of us have at least a nodding familiarity with international relations theory, given how much it relates to IG, and in IR theory the term neoliberal means something quite different to its economic meaning. Yet JNC members, in particular, tend to use the term like punctuation, with no indication of any awareness of the ambiguity. Cheers David > I suppose it is a mercy that 'evil capitalist running dogs' is out of fashion these days. > On November 19, 2014 2:52:03 PM Sivasubramanian M wrote: > >> Dear Guru, >> >> ​(You (Guru) said: ​WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated work also is structuring our participation in the information society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global surveillance >> >> ​If such as strong generalization of big business is to be accepted as fair and valid, then all those who subscribe to such a generalization may have to go back to the WSIS declarations and summarily exclude Business as a Stakeholder group, and then declare that Internet Governance ought to be a process with two stakeholder groups - Government + Civil Society. No, no, on second thoughts I see your reference to Snowden and USG+, so the Civil Society could exclude Government from Internet Governance, and declare that Internet Governance must be reinvented as a single stakeholder group process, with Civil Society as the only stakeholder group. >> >> Seriously, if WSIS had committed to build a "people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society​", what happens to inclusiveness and development with such a position on Big Business? ​ >> >> And, why this hatred for big business? Most progress in this world has happened because of enterprise, much more because of business than because of Government. Granted, some of the information technology big businesses have worked with Governments on surveillance designs, and even there, we do not know how of much of such cooperation came out of a desire for profit and how much of it was forced by arm-twisting or by milder pressures in so many subtle and imaginative ways. >> >> Irrespective of how WEF's role has been articulated at the moment, it is a very positive development to bring in the WEF. ​WEF participation suddenly expands business participation to a world of business outside the IT sector, so WEF's attention to IG issues might by itself act as a balancing influence within the corporate world, because many of these Big Businesses are Internet "users" themselves. ​Some of these Big Businesses are possibly charitable in unknown ways. What is needed here is strong support at the moment, and we could ​eventually ​work towards a greater balance across stakeholder groups.​ ​ >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Guru wrote: >> Dear Mawaki >> >> I would like to cite from two sources: >> >> A. WSIS Declaration of Principles - http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html (the very first two clauses) >> >> 1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world*, *assembled in Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >> 2. Our challenge* is to harness the potential of information and communication technology to promote the development goals of the Millennium Declaration, namely the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; achievement of universal primary education; promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women; reduction of child mortality; improvement of maternal health; to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring environmental sustainability; and development of global partnerships for development for the attainment of a more peaceful, just and prosperous world. We also reiterate our commitment to the achievement of sustainable development and agreed development goals, as contained in the Johannesburg Declaration and Plan of Implementation and the Monterrey Consensus, and other outcomes of relevant United Nations Summits. >> >> I now will cite from the WEF site - http://www.weforum.org/our-members >> >> Begin >> Our Members >> The World Economic Forum is a membership organization. Our Members comprise 1,000 of the world’s top corporations, global enterprises usually with more than US$ 5 billion in turnover. These enterprises rank among the top companies within their industry and play a leading role in shaping the future of their industry and region. Some of our Member companies join the Forum’s Strategic and Industry Partnership communities, which are designed to deepen their engagement with the Forum’s events, project and initiatives. The Forum’s Members are at the heart of all our activities. >> End >> >> It is clear that WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated work also is structuring our participation in the information society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global surveillance, which helps them in their goals of political-economic domination / colonisation >> >> Participating in forums anchored in such a space will only legitimise their power. I am clear that IGC should not participate in the NMI. >> >> thanks and regards >> Guru >> >> Gurumurthy Kasinathan >> Director, IT for Change >> In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC >> www.ITforChange.Net| Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890 >> http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum >> >> >> On Tuesday 18 November 2014 05:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> > Dear All, >> >> > >> >> > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't >> repeat >> >> > the background details. In the middle of the night last >> night, before >> >> > hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing >> catch-up with >> >> > deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI >> >> > Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, >> they are >> >> > willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the >> NMI >> >> > Coordination Council. >> >> > >> >> > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership >> of CSCG >> >> > member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI >> process or >> >> > not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations >> we've been >> >> > having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and >> with the >> >> > membership of our respective organizations.) After this we >> should be >> >> > able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position >> about >> >> > our participation in the NMI process. >> >> > >> >> > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be >> brief. >> >> > State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement >> and, if >> >> > you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you >> if you >> >> > could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph >> (as we >> >> > just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see >> what I >> >> > mean.) >> >> > >> >> > Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. >> >> > >> >> > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Fri Nov 21 00:23:54 2014 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shailam at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 21:23:54 -0800 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <149c7681318.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <149c7681318.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Hi If we wish to have our voice heard we need to be at the table. If we are not there how can we voice opinions ,influence and shape policy decisions. Regardless of the numerous pros and cons to joining NM, the prevailing factor is to be a participating presence. Shaila Rao Mistry Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 19, 2014, at 1:35 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Even within civil society, include only those sections of civil society that still use jargon like neoliberal > > I suppose it is a mercy that 'evil capitalist running dogs' is out of fashion these days. >> On November 19, 2014 2:52:03 PM Sivasubramanian M wrote: >> >> Dear Guru, >> >>> ​(You (Guru) said: ​WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated work also is structuring our participation in the information society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global surveillance >> >> ​If such as strong generalization of big business is to be accepted as fair and valid, then all those who subscribe to such a generalization may have to go back to the WSIS declarations and summarily exclude Business as a Stakeholder group, and then declare that Internet Governance ought to be a process with two stakeholder groups - Government + Civil Society. No, no, on second thoughts I see your reference to Snowden and USG+, so the Civil Society could exclude Government from Internet Governance, and declare that Internet Governance must be reinvented as a single stakeholder group process, with Civil Society as the only stakeholder group. >> >> Seriously, if WSIS had committed to build a "people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society​", what happens to inclusiveness and development with such a position on Big Business? ​ >> >> And, why this hatred for big business? Most progress in this world has happened because of enterprise, much more because of business than because of Government. Granted, some of the information technology big businesses have worked with Governments on surveillance designs, and even there, we do not know how of much of such cooperation came out of a desire for profit and how much of it was forced by arm-twisting or by milder pressures in so many subtle and imaginative ways. >> >> Irrespective of how WEF's role has been articulated at the moment, it is a very positive development to bring in the WEF. ​WEF participation suddenly expands business participation to a world of business outside the IT sector, so WEF's attention to IG issues might by itself act as a balancing influence within the corporate world, because many of these Big Businesses are Internet "users" themselves. ​Some of these Big Businesses are possibly charitable in unknown ways. What is needed here is strong support at the moment, and we could ​eventually ​work towards a greater balance across stakeholder groups.​ ​ >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> >> >>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Guru wrote: >>> Dear Mawaki >>> >>> I would like to cite from two sources: >>> >>> A. WSIS Declaration of Principles - http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html (the very first two clauses) >>> >>> 1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world*, *assembled in Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>> 2. Our challenge* is to harness the potential of information and communication technology to promote the development goals of the Millennium Declaration, namely the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; achievement of universal primary education; promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women; reduction of child mortality; improvement of maternal health; to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring environmental sustainability; and development of global partnerships for development for the attainment of a more peaceful, just and prosperous world. We also reiterate our commitment to the achievement of sustainable development and agreed development goals, as contained in the Johannesburg Declaration and Plan of Implementation and the Monterrey Consensus, and other outcomes of relevant United Nations Summits. >>> >>> I now will cite from the WEF site - http://www.weforum.org/our-members >>> >>> Begin >>> Our Members >>> The World Economic Forum is a membership organization. Our Members comprise 1,000 of the world’s top corporations, global enterprises usually with more than US$ 5 billion in turnover. These enterprises rank among the top companies within their industry and play a leading role in shaping the future of their industry and region. Some of our Member companies join the Forum’s Strategic and Industry Partnership communities, which are designed to deepen their engagement with the Forum’s events, project and initiatives. The Forum’s Members are at the heart of all our activities. >>> End >>> >>> It is clear that WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated work also is structuring our participation in the information society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global surveillance, which helps them in their goals of political-economic domination / colonisation >>> >>> Participating in forums anchored in such a space will only legitimise their power. I am clear that IGC should not participate in the NMI. >>> >>> thanks and regards >>> Guru >>> >>> Gurumurthy Kasinathan >>> Director, IT for Change >>> In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC >>> www.ITforChange.Net| Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890 >>> http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday 18 November 2014 05:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >>> > Dear All, >>> >>> > >>> >>> > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't >>> repeat >>> >>> > the background details. In the middle of the night last >>> night, before >>> >>> > hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing >>> catch-up with >>> >>> > deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI >>> >>> > Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, >>> they are >>> >>> > willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the >>> NMI >>> >>> > Coordination Council. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership >>> of CSCG >>> >>> > member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI >>> process or >>> >>> > not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations >>> we've been >>> >>> > having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and >>> with the >>> >>> > membership of our respective organizations.) After this we >>> should be >>> >>> > able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position >>> about >>> >>> > our participation in the NMI process. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be >>> brief. >>> >>> > State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement >>> and, if >>> >>> > you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you >>> if you >>> >>> > could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph >>> (as we >>> >>> > just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see >>> what I >>> >>> > mean.) >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 21 00:35:28 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 11:05:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <90B1BAF8-41AC-4305-AF25-3EDA377080A9@difference.com.au> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <149c7681318.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <90B1BAF8-41AC-4305-AF25-3EDA377080A9@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <149d0d90178.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> They tend to use it more like an obscenity if you ask me. It has become the new 'evil capitalist running dog' of sorts. On November 21, 2014 10:51:30 AM David Cake wrote: > > On 19 Nov 2014, at 5:35 pm, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > Even within civil society, include only those sections of civil society > that still use jargon like neoliberal > > > As I said on another list recently, that particular bit of jargon > irritates me no end. In part because you'd hope that some of us have at > least a nodding familiarity with international relations theory, given how > much it relates to IG, and in IR theory the term neoliberal means something > quite different to its economic meaning. Yet JNC members, in particular, > tend to use the term like punctuation, with no indication of any awareness > of the ambiguity. > > Cheers > David > > > I suppose it is a mercy that 'evil capitalist running dogs' is out of > fashion these days. > > On November 19, 2014 2:52:03 PM Sivasubramanian M > wrote: > > > >> Dear Guru, > >> > >> ​(You (Guru) said: ​WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have > seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of > Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from > using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in > authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated work > also is structuring our participation in the information society in many > unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are in > cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global > surveillance > >> > >> ​If such as strong generalization of big business is to be accepted as > fair and valid, then all those who subscribe to such a generalization may > have to go back to the WSIS declarations and summarily exclude Business as > a Stakeholder group, and then declare that Internet Governance ought to be > a process with two stakeholder groups - Government + Civil Society. No, > no, on second thoughts I see your reference to Snowden and USG+, so the > Civil Society could exclude Government from Internet Governance, and > declare that Internet Governance must be reinvented as a single stakeholder > group process, with Civil Society as the only stakeholder group. > >> > >> Seriously, if WSIS had committed to build a "people-centred, inclusive > and development-oriented Information Society​", what happens to > inclusiveness and development with such a position on Big Business? ​ > >> > >> And, why this hatred for big business? Most progress in this world has > happened because of enterprise, much more because of business than because > of Government. Granted, some of the information technology big businesses > have worked with Governments on surveillance designs, and even there, we do > not know how of much of such cooperation came out of a desire for profit > and how much of it was forced by arm-twisting or by milder pressures in so > many subtle and imaginative ways. > >> > >> Irrespective of how WEF's role has been articulated at the moment, it is > a very positive development to bring in the WEF. ​WEF participation > suddenly expands business participation to a world of business outside the > IT sector, so WEF's attention to IG issues might by itself act as a > balancing influence within the corporate world, because many of these Big > Businesses are Internet "users" themselves. ​Some of these Big Businesses > are possibly charitable in unknown ways. What is needed here is strong > support at the moment, and we could ​eventually ​work towards a greater > balance across stakeholder groups.​ ​ > >> > >> Sivasubramanian M > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Guru wrote: > >> Dear Mawaki > >> > >> I would like to cite from two sources: > >> > >> A. WSIS Declaration of Principles - > http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html (the very first two > clauses) > >> > >> 1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world*, *assembled in > Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on > the Information Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to build > a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, > where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and > knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their > full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving > their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the > Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the > Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > >> 2. Our challenge* is to harness the potential of information and > communication technology to promote the development goals of the Millennium > Declaration, namely the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; > achievement of universal primary education; promotion of gender equality > and empowerment of women; reduction of child mortality; improvement of > maternal health; to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring > environmental sustainability; and development of global partnerships for > development for the attainment of a more peaceful, just and prosperous > world. We also reiterate our commitment to the achievement of sustainable > development and agreed development goals, as contained in the Johannesburg > Declaration and Plan of Implementation and the Monterrey Consensus, and > other outcomes of relevant United Nations Summits. > >> > >> I now will cite from the WEF site - http://www.weforum.org/our-members > >> > >> Begin > >> Our Members > >> The World Economic Forum is a membership organization. Our Members > comprise 1,000 of the world’s top corporations, global enterprises usually > with more than US$ 5 billion in turnover. These enterprises rank among the > top companies within their industry and play a leading role in shaping the > future of their industry and region. Some of our Member companies join the > Forum’s Strategic and Industry Partnership communities, which are designed > to deepen their engagement with the Forum’s events, project and > initiatives. The Forum’s Members are at the heart of all our activities. > >> End > >> > >> It is clear that WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have > seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of > Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from > using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in > authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated work > also is structuring our participation in the information society in many > unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are in > cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global > surveillance, which helps them in their goals of political-economic > domination / colonisation > >> > >> Participating in forums anchored in such a space will only legitimise > their power. I am clear that IGC should not participate in the NMI. > >> > >> thanks and regards > >> Guru > >> > >> Gurumurthy Kasinathan > >> Director, IT for Change > >> In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC > >> www.ITforChange.Net| Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890 > >> http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum > >> > >> > >> On Tuesday 18 November 2014 05:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > >> > Dear All, > >> > >> > > >> > >> > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't > >> repeat > >> > >> > the background details. In the middle of the night last > >> night, before > >> > >> > hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing > >> catch-up with > >> > >> > deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI > >> > >> > Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, > >> they are > >> > >> > willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the > >> NMI > >> > >> > Coordination Council. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership > >> of CSCG > >> > >> > member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI > >> process or > >> > >> > not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations > >> we've been > >> > >> > having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and > >> with the > >> > >> > membership of our respective organizations.) After this we > >> should be > >> > >> > able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position > >> about > >> > >> > our participation in the NMI process. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be > >> brief. > >> > >> > State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement > >> and, if > >> > >> > you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you > >> if you > >> > >> > could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph > >> (as we > >> > >> > just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see > >> what I > >> > >> > mean.) > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 21 00:39:25 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 11:09:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <149c7681318.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <149d0dca710.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> I can't agree more. The other thing is you will definitely find other civil society organizations at the table, whatever the local consensus we achieve here is. On November 21, 2014 10:55:08 AM shailam at yahoo.com wrote: > Hi > If we wish to have our voice heard we need to be at the table. If we are > not there how can we voice opinions ,influence and shape policy decisions. > Regardless of the numerous pros and cons to joining NM, the prevailing > factor is to be a participating presence. > Shaila Rao Mistry > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Nov 19, 2014, at 1:35 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > > > Even within civil society, include only those sections of civil society > that still use jargon like neoliberal > > > > I suppose it is a mercy that 'evil capitalist running dogs' is out of > fashion these days. > >> On November 19, 2014 2:52:03 PM Sivasubramanian M > wrote: > >> > >> Dear Guru, > >> > >>> ​(You (Guru) said: ​WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We > have seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of > Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from > using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in > authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated work > also is structuring our participation in the information society in many > unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are in > cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global > surveillance > >> > >> ​If such as strong generalization of big business is to be accepted as > fair and valid, then all those who subscribe to such a generalization may > have to go back to the WSIS declarations and summarily exclude Business as > a Stakeholder group, and then declare that Internet Governance ought to be > a process with two stakeholder groups - Government + Civil Society. No, > no, on second thoughts I see your reference to Snowden and USG+, so the > Civil Society could exclude Government from Internet Governance, and > declare that Internet Governance must be reinvented as a single stakeholder > group process, with Civil Society as the only stakeholder group. > >> > >> Seriously, if WSIS had committed to build a "people-centred, inclusive > and development-oriented Information Society​", what happens to > inclusiveness and development with such a position on Big Business? ​ > >> > >> And, why this hatred for big business? Most progress in this world has > happened because of enterprise, much more because of business than because > of Government. Granted, some of the information technology big businesses > have worked with Governments on surveillance designs, and even there, we do > not know how of much of such cooperation came out of a desire for profit > and how much of it was forced by arm-twisting or by milder pressures in so > many subtle and imaginative ways. > >> > >> Irrespective of how WEF's role has been articulated at the moment, it is > a very positive development to bring in the WEF. ​WEF participation > suddenly expands business participation to a world of business outside the > IT sector, so WEF's attention to IG issues might by itself act as a > balancing influence within the corporate world, because many of these Big > Businesses are Internet "users" themselves. ​Some of these Big Businesses > are possibly charitable in unknown ways. What is needed here is strong > support at the moment, and we could ​eventually ​work towards a greater > balance across stakeholder groups.​ ​ > >> > >> Sivasubramanian M > >> > >> > >>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Guru wrote: > >>> Dear Mawaki > >>> > >>> I would like to cite from two sources: > >>> > >>> A. WSIS Declaration of Principles - > http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html (the very first two > clauses) > >>> > >>> 1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world*, *assembled in > Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on > the Information Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to build > a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, > where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and > knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their > full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving > their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the > Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the > Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > >>> 2. Our challenge* is to harness the potential of information and > communication technology to promote the development goals of the Millennium > Declaration, namely the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; > achievement of universal primary education; promotion of gender equality > and empowerment of women; reduction of child mortality; improvement of > maternal health; to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring > environmental sustainability; and development of global partnerships for > development for the attainment of a more peaceful, just and prosperous > world. We also reiterate our commitment to the achievement of sustainable > development and agreed development goals, as contained in the Johannesburg > Declaration and Plan of Implementation and the Monterrey Consensus, and > other outcomes of relevant United Nations Summits. > >>> > >>> I now will cite from the WEF site - http://www.weforum.org/our-members > >>> > >>> Begin > >>> Our Members > >>> The World Economic Forum is a membership organization. Our Members > comprise 1,000 of the world’s top corporations, global enterprises usually > with more than US$ 5 billion in turnover. These enterprises rank among the > top companies within their industry and play a leading role in shaping the > future of their industry and region. Some of our Member companies join the > Forum’s Strategic and Industry Partnership communities, which are designed > to deepen their engagement with the Forum’s events, project and > initiatives. The Forum’s Members are at the heart of all our activities. > >>> End > >>> > >>> It is clear that WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have > seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of > Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from > using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in > authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated work > also is structuring our participation in the information society in many > unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are in > cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global > surveillance, which helps them in their goals of political-economic > domination / colonisation > >>> > >>> Participating in forums anchored in such a space will only legitimise > their power. I am clear that IGC should not participate in the NMI. > >>> > >>> thanks and regards > >>> Guru > >>> > >>> Gurumurthy Kasinathan > >>> Director, IT for Change > >>> In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC > >>> www.ITforChange.Net| Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890 > >>> http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tuesday 18 November 2014 05:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > >>> > Dear All, > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't > >>> repeat > >>> > >>> > the background details. In the middle of the night last > >>> night, before > >>> > >>> > hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing > >>> catch-up with > >>> > >>> > deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI > >>> > >>> > Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, > >>> they are > >>> > >>> > willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the > >>> NMI > >>> > >>> > Coordination Council. > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership > >>> of CSCG > >>> > >>> > member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI > >>> process or > >>> > >>> > not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations > >>> we've been > >>> > >>> > having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and > >>> with the > >>> > >>> > membership of our respective organizations.) After this we > >>> should be > >>> > >>> > able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position > >>> about > >>> > >>> > our participation in the NMI process. > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be > >>> brief. > >>> > >>> > State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement > >>> and, if > >>> > >>> > you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you > >>> if you > >>> > >>> > could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph > >>> (as we > >>> > >>> > just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see > >>> what I > >>> > >>> > mean.) > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri Nov 21 00:47:26 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:47:26 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We all expected that the Wuzhen Declaration would be read out at the closing ceremony, but that did not happen. Later, at the lunch reception, MInister Lu Wei said in an informal conversation "oh, we don't call it a Declaration, since you do not agree with" to an American guest. It remains to be seen, however, if they will still announce it at the 3 pm Press Conference (or not). izumi 2014-11-21 11:00 GMT+09:00 Izumi AIZU : > Here is what I just sent to the organizing committee of the World Internet > Conference. > > Izumi > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Izumi AIZU > Date: 2014-11-21 10:59 GMT+09:00 > Subject: My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration > To: Organizing Committee of World Internet Conference > > > Dear Sir/madam, > > I have been enjoying the WIC so much. Thank you for creating and sharing > this wonderful event. > > I agree with the theme - Internet governance for all - or Interconnected > world shared and governed by all. I appreciate the open dialogue sessions. > > Now, to the Wuzhen Declaration, I would like to make following comments > for the record as an active member of the Civil Society engaged in Internet > Governance and Information Society issues and make my humble reservation. > > First, getting the draft in the middle of the night and the deadline of 8 > am for any revision is impossible to accommodate. This is against the > spirit of "shared and governed by all". > > Second, there is no mention of "Multistakeholder" process or approach > which has been well accepted by most, if not all, of stakeholders at ICANN, > IGF, and other international fora for Internet governance mechanisms. Even > though there are a lot of room for improvement and reform, simply ignoring > this principle from the declaration, in my view, will greatly discredit the > value of our declaration. > > Also, there is no reference to WSIS Tunis Agenda, people-centered > information society, that is a mistake. > > No mention of UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights also severely > undermines the value and effect. > > There is too much emphasis on economic and technological potential of the > Internet, but far less views expressed to social, human and cultural > dimensions Internet will contribute. > > Following points are also observed: > > - Consensus is missing from international cooperation > > - Internet as an permissionless innovation environment > > - Accountable participation as part of cyber security activities > > - Advancement of Internet technology should build on global rough > consensus of the engineering technical community (not politics) > > - Internet as an economy of growth and that China should play a bigger > role to help developing countries from her experience > > With these reasons, I like to make my reservation on record. > > I also like to mention the statement we co-signed: > > "Community Statement Presented at Wuzhen Summit" > > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141120_community_statement_presented_at_wuzhen_summit/ > > Thank you for your attention and understanding, I still remain committed > and connected with your great effort. > > Izumi Aizu > Senior Research Fellow and Professor, > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > www.anr.org > > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr Fri Nov 21 01:33:14 2014 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 06:33:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <149d0dca710.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <1416551594.31150.YahooMailIosMobile@web28703.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From remmyn at gmail.com Fri Nov 21 01:41:29 2014 From: remmyn at gmail.com (Remmy Nweke) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 07:41:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for sharing Izumi Those points are cogent.. Remmy Nweke @ITRealms On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Here is what I just sent to the organizing committee of the World Internet > Conference. > > Izumi > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Izumi AIZU > Date: 2014-11-21 10:59 GMT+09:00 > Subject: My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration > To: Organizing Committee of World Internet Conference > > > Dear Sir/madam, > > I have been enjoying the WIC so much. Thank you for creating and sharing > this wonderful event. > > I agree with the theme - Internet governance for all - or Interconnected > world shared and governed by all. I appreciate the open dialogue sessions. > > Now, to the Wuzhen Declaration, I would like to make following comments > for the record as an active member of the Civil Society engaged in Internet > Governance and Information Society issues and make my humble reservation. > > First, getting the draft in the middle of the night and the deadline of 8 > am for any revision is impossible to accommodate. This is against the > spirit of "shared and governed by all". > > Second, there is no mention of "Multistakeholder" process or approach > which has been well accepted by most, if not all, of stakeholders at ICANN, > IGF, and other international fora for Internet governance mechanisms. Even > though there are a lot of room for improvement and reform, simply ignoring > this principle from the declaration, in my view, will greatly discredit the > value of our declaration. > > Also, there is no reference to WSIS Tunis Agenda, people-centered > information society, that is a mistake. > > No mention of UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights also severely > undermines the value and effect. > > There is too much emphasis on economic and technological potential of the > Internet, but far less views expressed to social, human and cultural > dimensions Internet will contribute. > > Following points are also observed: > > - Consensus is missing from international cooperation > > - Internet as an permissionless innovation environment > > - Accountable participation as part of cyber security activities > > - Advancement of Internet technology should build on global rough > consensus of the engineering technical community (not politics) > > - Internet as an economy of growth and that China should play a bigger > role to help developing countries from her experience > > With these reasons, I like to make my reservation on record. > > I also like to mention the statement we co-signed: > > "Community Statement Presented at Wuzhen Summit" > > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141120_community_statement_presented_at_wuzhen_summit/ > > Thank you for your attention and understanding, I still remain committed > and connected with your great effort. > > Izumi Aizu > Senior Research Fellow and Professor, > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > www.anr.org > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- ____ REMMY NWEKE, Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd (publishers of) DigitalSENSE Business News; ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet (Multiple-award winning medium) Published by: DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms [Member, NIRA Executive Board] Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria NDS Forum on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2015 < http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng>- June 5 Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2015 - June 6 @Welcome Centre Hotels. Register now. Email: remnekkv at gmail.com _____________________________________________________________________ *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Fri Nov 21 02:10:39 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:10:39 +0800 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <1486537673.7522.1416390999726.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f29> <4D5FE9B9-60E9-4AE4-BC19-5A72B08E78A6@orange.fr> Message-ID: <146A4EC5-F62D-421E-98FB-E21C3CA21380@difference.com.au> I think Deirdre speaks a fair bit of sense here. I don't think the two sides of this debate are as far apart some would suggest. The majority of CS certainly seemed to feel that the initial proposal for structure presented by the NMI founding organisations was very badly flawed. Now, it may be that there are some within JNC and other parts of civil society who are willing to write off the entire enterprise simply because WEF is one of the founding organisations, regardless of the specific role it has in the current structure. That position generally goes along with an opposition to all fora in which commercial organisations are full participants (a familiar JNC refrain), and I think we can say that is solidly a minority position within CS groups that participate in IG processes, and likely to stay that way. There are also those, primarily within the technical community, who feel that having transnational fora that can make meaningful decisions on anything related to the Internet, outside the narrow technical remit of the I* agencies, is a problem. There is perhaps a lingering sense of this within the ISOC decision (though there is more to it than that). But I get the feeling that the majority of us would cautiously welcome some more meaningful fora for addressing some broader IG issues, in the spirit of NetMundial. There are some who would rather than took place by an expanded role for the IGF, but I don't think there are many of us who think that is likely to happen in the near future. So, I think we are more or less left with a majority that feels that something with similar goals to the NMI would be valuable, but the current NMI as proposed has some very real problems in structure and process, especially with the significant role of the WEF. The big question is how to respond to the existence of this badly flawed initiative. So we essentially have divisions between those who feel the process and structure so far is so badly flawed that the best response is to ignore it and hope that a better initiative can be constructed after its failure, those who feel that with sufficient negotiation and pressure it can be wrenched into more acceptable shape, and those who feel that despite its significant flaws it might turn out to be a significant venue. I think these divisions are largely tactical (there are no insurmountable differences regarding the potential value of a forum with general aims similar to NMI, or on the significant flaws of this proposal to fill that space). Most of the arguments turn on whether or not it will turn out to be a significant forum. If it will be significant with or without CS, the argument is we should be involved. If ISOC withdrawal has already killed it, we should not bother participating. If CS involvement is the deciding factor on whether or not it will be acceptable, then how should we use that potential leverage, or should we simply drop it on principle. My opinion is that ISOC withdrawing has already holed it below the waterline, and it will not be a significant initiative unless it can drag the tech community back in to refloat it, and doing so would probably require the significant changes to the structure and process that CS wants. So, I'm probably in favour of no participation at this point, and maybe agreeing to participate at a later date if the structure is changed. But I regard that as a tactical decision at this point, and I certainly don't think anyone who does want to participate is letting down CS as a whole by choosing to do so. David On 21 Nov 2014, at 4:43 am, Deirdre Williams wrote: > I asked in an earlier post whether civil society has been manoeuvred into a position in which choosing not to be involved becomes not really an option? As civil society we have a very broad range of perspective and therefore it is much more difficult for this group to act together rapidly, as ISOC has done, when the nature of the issue itself is still doubtful. Other people have already reminded us of the hesitation before the NETmundial meeting in April, and the enthusiasm (in general) which greeted the outcomes of that meeting, although there are still some reservations – Renata just shared hers. > My sympathies lean towards a reluctance to provide legitimacy, but my common sense suggests the following: > As far as I can see the Netmundial Initiative will continue with or without us. > Civil Society is split now (and has been split for some time) so that any attempt at a boycott is likely to fail because it will be incomplete. > The invitation to join can be presented in such a way as to provide legitimacy even if not all of civil society agrees to accept. (This is what I meant by “manoeuvred” above.) > We have not been given a clear picture of what the initiative is – it may prove to be something that meets our approval – or not. > It is very important that any civil society representatives who join that committee should be people who go with an open mind. Those who disapprove are absenting themselves anyway; it would be better to have representatives who are initially neutral but open to be persuaded one way or the other. > Finally, should the initiative prove to be unacceptable, a well publicised walkout by the 5 civil society representatives (who are also representing “the world”) would be much easier to arrange and much more effective than a partial boycott before the meeting takes place. > The discussion at the Geneva Internet Conference about the Netmundial Initiative yesterday morning (Wednesday 19th) was useful. On Tuesday during “Same issues, different perspectives: overcoming policy silos in privacy and data protection”, one of the afternoon sessions, Brian Trammell, Senior Researcher, Communication Systems Group, ETH Zurich, presenting the “technical” perspective, said of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) that members are volunteers who “participate as individuals”. This is also true of the Internet Governance Caucus, and essentially of civil society as a whole. One of the freedoms that our society tries to provide is the right of the individual to follow the dictates of her/his own conscience. My own choice is a pragmatic one. It should in no way be seen as a criticism of anyone else's point of view or decision. > Deirdre > > On 20 November 2014 11:41, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Fellas, > Some of us have raised questions about the views of the Brazilian party (CGI.br) in this NMI business. But I know they are in a delicate position and may be concerned to appear as judge and jury if they come out strong for a position (and we can expect which that position would be.) Flavio is not on the IGC list but he granted me the permission to forward to this list this message of his below, originally posted to the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN's GNSO. > Best, > > Mawaki > > > Fw: [NCSG-Discuss] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE > > On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:55 AM, Flávio Rech Wagner wrote: > > > Robin > > I have been informed that the "transitional council" of the NMI - NETmundial Initiative (which contains representatives from ICANN, CGI.br and WEF and is provisory, until the 25 names of the permanent council have been defined) is having an intense dialogue with CSCG (the Civil Society Coordination Group) and, together, they shall come to a solution for appointing names to the council by consensus and fully respecting nominations from Civil Society. There is no intention whatsoever from the transitional council to indicate names in a closed, top-down manner and without full endorsement from CSCG. > > The transitional council also expects to achieve similar solutions for appointing names that will represent other stakeholder groups. > > Please notice that CGI.br (the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee), which is one of the entities proposing the NMI, would never agree with top-down, closed decisions that would strongly undermine CGI's legitimacy as a true bottom-up, multistakeholder body. CGI.br is completely committed to preserve the NETmundial principles in the implementation of the NMI. > > Please remember also that, when NETmundial was proposed by the end of 2013, all of us in the global Internet Governance (IG) community, because of lack of information, were puzzled about its organization and possible success and outcomes. But the global community faced the challenge and transformed a vague idea into a successful event, with a true multistakeholder organization, with very open and transparent processes, and with a final document that was achieved by rough consensus and approved governance principles that were praised by most of the stakeholders (including human rights and other principles that are extremely valued by Civil Society). > > So let's try to transform NMI, which is still also a vague idea, into something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG and that fully respects the principles enshrined in the NETmundial declaration. > > Flávio > (NCUC member and member of the Board of CGI.br) > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr Fri Nov 21 02:23:59 2014 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 07:23:59 +0000 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <146A4EC5-F62D-421E-98FB-E21C3CA21380@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <1416554639.51899.YahooMailIosMobile@web28706.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Fri Nov 21 02:39:58 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:39:58 +0800 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <1416554639.51899.YahooMailIosMobile@web28706.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1416554639.51899.YahooMailIosMobile@web28706.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <959D9AA2-690A-4557-BEF4-302880761075@difference.com.au> I think if ISOC continues to not be involved, and there is no significant buy in from other I* orgs other than ICANN, then the NMI will not end up being a very significant process anyway. But I certainly think that if the CSCG, or individual groups within it, continue to negotiate, and particularly if there is a significant change that responds to ISOC concerns, then that is no problem. If CS members wish to participate in the process in the hope that happens, I have no problem with that. That said, I'd be surprised if ISOC change their position without huge changes to the process (possibly equivalent to more or less starting again). I personally doubt JNC will rejoin the process unless WEF is effectively removed from any leadership role, but I'm sure they are more than capable of explaining their position themselves. David On 21 Nov 2014, at 3:23 pm, Arsene TUNGALI wrote: > > David, you are right in many of the points raised but... > > Not participating, in my opinion, will result in no change of structure or so within NMI. However, being part of it will certainly shape it. We need people who will challenge them to sit on the same table for face-to-face debates. > > From my understanding, ISOC, JNC and other groups who are againts will be happy to join if there is some major changes happening. But trust me, no change will happen if we remain on arguing on mailing lists rather than on that table. > > I encourage those who are willing to join to go and help change the course of things within NMI so the other CS bodies can join as well:) > > ------------------ > Arsene Tungali, > Executive Director, Rudi International > www.rudiinternational.org > > Founder, Mabingwa Forum > www.mabingwa-forum.com > Phone:+243993810967 > > ICANN Fellow | ISOC Member | Child Online Protection Advocate | Youth Leader | Internet Governance. > Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > At 21 nov. 2014 09:10:39, David Cake<'dave at difference.com.au'> wrote:I think Deirdre speaks a fair bit of sense here. > > I don't think the two sides of this debate are as far apart some would suggest. > > The majority of CS certainly seemed to feel that the initial proposal for structure presented by the NMI founding organisations was very badly flawed. > > Now, it may be that there are some within JNC and other parts of civil society who are willing to write off the entire enterprise simply because WEF is one of the founding organisations, regardless of the specific role it has in the current structure. That position generally goes along with an opposition to all fora in which commercial organisations are full participants (a familiar JNC refrain), and I think we can say that is solidly a minority position within CS groups that participate in IG processes, and likely to stay that way. > > There are also those, primarily within the technical community, who feel that having transnational fora that can make meaningful decisions on anything related to the Internet, outside the narrow technical remit of the I* agencies, is a problem. There is perhaps a lingering sense of this within the ISOC decision (though there is more to it than that). But I get the feeling that the majority of us would cautiously welcome some more meaningful fora for addressing some broader IG issues, in the spirit of NetMundial. There are some who would rather than took place by an expanded role for the IGF, but I don't think there are many of us who think that is likely to happen in the near future. > > So, I think we are more or less left with a majority that feels that something with similar goals to the NMI would be valuable, but the current NMI as proposed has some very real problems in structure and process, especially with the significant role of the WEF. The big question is how to respond to the existence of this badly flawed initiative. > > So we essentially have divisions between those who feel the process and structure so far is so badly flawed that the best response is to ignore it and hope that a better initiative can be constructed after its failure, those who feel that with sufficient negotiation and pressure it can be wrenched into more acceptable shape, and those who feel that despite its significant flaws it might turn out to be a significant venue. I think these divisions are largely tactical (there are no insurmountable differences regarding the potential value of a forum with general aims similar to NMI, or on the significant flaws of this proposal to fill that space). Most of the arguments turn on whether or not it will turn out to be a significant forum. If it will be significant with or without CS, the argument is we should be involved. If ISOC withdrawal has already killed it, we should not bother participating. If CS involvement is the deciding factor on whether or not it will be acceptable, then how should we use that potential leverage, or should we simply drop it on principle. > > My opinion is that ISOC withdrawing has already holed it below the waterline, and it will not be a significant initiative unless it can drag the tech community back in to refloat it, and doing so would probably require the significant changes to the structure and process that CS wants. So, I'm probably in favour of no participation at this point, and maybe agreeing to participate at a later date if the structure is changed. But I regard that as a tactical decision at this point, and I certainly don't think anyone who does want to participate is letting down CS as a whole by choosing to do so. > > David > > > On 21 Nov 2014, at 4:43 am, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >> I asked in an earlier post whether >> civil society has been manoeuvred into a position in which choosing >> not to be involved becomes not really an option? >> As civil society we have a very broad range of perspective and >> therefore it is much more difficult for this group to act together >> rapidly, as ISOC has done, when the nature of the issue itself is >> still doubtful. Other people have already reminded us of the >> hesitation before the NETmundial meeting in April, and the enthusiasm >> (in general) which greeted the outcomes of that meeting, although >> there are still some reservations – Renata just shared hers. >> My sympathies lean towards a reluctance >> to provide legitimacy, but my common sense suggests the following: >> >> >> As far as I can see the Netmundial >> Initiative will continue with or without us. >> >> Civil Society is split now (and >> has been split for some time) so that any attempt at a boycott is >> likely to fail because it will be incomplete. >> >> The invitation to join can be >> presented in such a way as to provide legitimacy even if not all of >> civil society agrees to accept. (This is what I meant by >> “manoeuvred” above.) >> >> We have not been given a clear >> picture of what the initiative is – it may prove to be something >> that meets our approval – or not. >> >> It is very important that any >> civil society representatives who join that committee should be >> people who go with an open mind. Those who disapprove are absenting >> themselves anyway; it would be better to have representatives who >> are initially neutral but open to be persuaded one way or the other. >> >> Finally, should the initiative >> prove to be unacceptable, a well publicised walkout by the 5 civil >> society representatives (who are also representing “the world”) >> would be much easier to arrange and much more effective than a >> partial boycott before the meeting takes place. >> >> The discussion at the Geneva Internet >> Conference about the Netmundial Initiative yesterday morning >> (Wednesday 19th) was useful. On Tuesday during “Same >> issues, different perspectives: overcoming policy silos in privacy >> and data protection”, one >> of the afternoon sessions, Brian >> Trammell, Senior Researcher, Communication Systems Group, ETH Zurich, >> presenting the “technical” perspective, said of the Internet >> Engineering Task Force (IETF) >> that members are volunteers who “participate as individuals”. >> This is also true of the Internet Governance Caucus, and essentially >> of civil society as a whole. One of the freedoms that our society tries to >> provide is the right of the individual to follow the dictates of >> her/his own conscience. My own choice is a pragmatic one. It should >> in no way be seen as a criticism of anyone else's point of view or >> decision. >> Deirdre >> >> On 20 November 2014 11:41, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> Fellas, >> Some of us have raised questions about the views of the Brazilian party (CGI.br) in this NMI business. But I know they are in a delicate position and may be concerned to appear as judge and jury if they come out strong for a position (and we can expect which that position would be.) Flavio is not on the IGC list but he granted me the permission to forward to this list this message of his below, originally posted to the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN's GNSO. >> Best, >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> Fw: [NCSG-Discuss] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE >> >> On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:55 AM, Flávio Rech Wagner wrote: >> >> >> Robin >> >> I have been informed that the "transitional council" of the NMI - NETmundial Initiative (which contains representatives from ICANN,CGI.br and WEF and is provisory, until the 25 names of the permanent council have been defined) is having an intense dialogue with CSCG (the Civil Society Coordination Group) and, together, they shall come to a solution for appointing names to the council by consensus and fully respecting nominations from Civil Society. There is no intention whatsoever from the transitional council to indicate names in a closed, top-down manner and without full endorsement from CSCG. >> >> The transitional council also expects to achieve similar solutions for appointing names that will represent other stakeholder groups. >> >> Please notice that CGI.br (the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee), which is one of the entities proposing the NMI, would never agree with top-down, closed decisions that would strongly undermine CGI's legitimacy as a true bottom-up, multistakeholder body. CGI.br is completely committed to preserve the NETmundial principles in the implementation of the NMI. >> >> Please remember also that, when NETmundial was proposed by the end of 2013, all of us in the global Internet Governance (IG) community, because of lack of information, were puzzled about its organization and possible success and outcomes. But the global community faced the challenge and transformed a vague idea into a successful event, with a true multistakeholder organization, with very open and transparent processes, and with a final document that was achieved by rough consensus and approved governance principles that were praised by most of the stakeholders (including human rights and other principles that are extremely valued by Civil Society). >> >> So let's try to transform NMI, which is still also a vague idea, into something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG and that fully respects the principles enshrined in the NETmundial declaration. >> >> Flávio >> (NCUC member and member of the Board of CGI.br) >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Fri Nov 21 03:07:11 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 09:07:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <1416551594.31150.YahooMailIosMobile@web28703.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1416551594.31150.YahooMailIosMobile@web28703.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: As we all know the Net Mundial is not a international treaty, it is not seated on any democratic legitimacy, it is not binding (to any stakeholders). It is wishful thinking, whatever we think it is. It has no road map. It has not defined any robust process of further consultation simply because it lacked any legitimacy. It has given no definition of what means "democratic multistakeholderism" probably because the "grouping" did not really asked itself what it really meant. Will the current initiative have to deal with all of these pending questions? Even re-write part of what was agreed with some difficulty and reserve? Well if it is so, it is more than predictable that this "initiative" will soon or later be lost in an ocean of other non consequential statements. With the asymmetry still at full speed. Is the NMI supposed to reassure the US government to transition the IANA function to ICANN (with cutting the direct link between itself and IANA, replacing this link by another one between itself and ICANN). Is this the NMI mission? Right now, the IANA contract might simply be renewed to give some extra time for clarifying the transition. But then why do we all bother? The NMI final report is suppposedly being processed... So Brazil would have simply be part of another swindle, and the Brazilian UN speech sent to the archives of this international institution created in san Francisco, in 1944. "Circulez bonnes gens". I don't think anyone should worry about the fact that such or such grouping self-appoints to itself a mandate of delivering a message to the world. The NMI initiative is right now of the track of becoming another masquarade. What is more depressing and concerning is the fact that IG civil society is totally failing its function and democratic challenge. Again, would it be more clever for civil society (as composed today) to - get together - see how to best transform the IGF in a useful forum, looking for becoming a really influential body ( go and get some funding at ICANN, WEF, BRAZIL as they look really concerned with the future of Internet) - keep talking with any table, if this table wishes to listen, and engage a conversation (that can be done without endorsing the table). One can simply wait for the outcome of any given table. Civil society would always be able to make its comment. No one here believes that governments will obey to a statement by a WEF/ICANN/CGIbr. - Assess its capacity to make progress - Be transparent about its source of funds (keep at bay the nice friends trying to twist the dialogue) If the current civil society participants are unable to go in that direction, new participants will take the lead, and send the not-ables to a well deserved rest. The new ones will be a bit more radical, and probably more efficient. With ISOC, JNC and others including some US academics refusing to give a free ride ticket, this initiative will just meet its destiny. And so what? What will be the dramatic changes? Be influential on something that has no consequence, what's the big deal? Some have expressed their idea of getting more acquainted with the "enemy". I don't see WEF as an enemy, and I don't see why I need to enter their bunker by the lake with lock doors, video surveillance, security guards, lacking some sense of hospitality and welcome to visitors, to better know what is WEF. It is more than well known to any honest broker who wishes to get it clear. It is for example already clear that the WEF vision of BIG DATA comes in contradiction to what CS is advocating in terms of protecting rights, and not just human rights. But why in this thread so far, no one was really concerned with this? On the contrary we might assist to another terrible mass to praise free-markets to handle any issues, including the public ones, thanks to elitist equal footing. "The only thing you don't want is more regulations" that was said during the GIP conference. During the GIF, isolated poor business representatives complained that corporations were not included of the Internet governance debate - a joke! That probably explains why it was hard for them to give the floor to other participants. Let's the divide get bigger, if this is all what our imagination is allowing us to think about. Seating 5 cs participants to NMI will bring nothing to IG. Getting CS together would bring much more. Let us see what a "democratic multistakeholderism" will happen to be once the WEF/ICANN/CGIbr will have had a second thought about it. Civil society is now aiming at a level zero of Politics. And we look like babies. "En avoir ou pas" wrote Hemingway. JC Le 21 nov. 2014 à 07:33, Arsene TUNGALI a écrit : > Hi there, > > Here are my thoughts on this trend. > > Civil Society is a stakeholder and it has its power as others to influence processes. In my life, i learnt to not refuse to be part of a process just because i don't share 'some' principles from one of the organisers although it is something that is important and can have a global impact in my own life and the life of those i most care about. Instead, i take the opportunity to go and try to help them change their behaviors. If nothing changes, then i know what to do. > > Flavio (CGI) said in the mail Mawaki shared: > ''...So let's try to transform NMI, which is still also a vague idea, into something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG and that fully respects the principles enshrined in the NETmundial declaration.'' > > Let's be part of the NMI but let's also define clear points: 'what we will never endorse' and 'what we need to work on as a CS agenda and give it to our 5 representatives'. We do have principles, right? > > We are at a big step of the history and not being part of this can be something future generations will never understand and will never forgive. We all know that they will go with or without us. Instead, if we go and things turn against our principles, then our 'publicized' leave will have more sense than a simple boycott before giving it a try. This is a big responsibility and an important decision for the future of CS as a whole. > > These are personal views! > > Regards, > A > ------------------ > Arsene Tungali, > Executive Director, Rudi International > www.rudiinternational.org > > Founder, Mabingwa Forum > www.mabingwa-forum.com > Phone:+243993810967 > > ICANN Fellow | ISOC Member | Child Online Protection Advocate | Youth Leader | Internet Governance. > Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > At 21 nov. 2014 07:39:52, Suresh Ramasubramanian<'suresh at hserus.net'> wrote: > > > > > > > I can't agree more. The other > thing is you will definitely find other civil society organizations at the > table, whatever the local consensus we achieve here is. > > > > > > On > November 21, 2014 10:55:08 AM shailam at yahoo.com wrote: > > >> Hi >> If >> we wish to have our voice heard we need to be at the table. If we are not >> there how can we voice opinions ,influence and shape policy decisions. >> Regardless of the numerous pros and cons to joining NM, the prevailing >> factor is to be a participating presence. >> Shaila Rao Mistry >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Nov 19, 2014, at 1:35 >> AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Even within civil society, >>> include only those sections of civil society that still use jargon like >>> neoliberal >>> >>> >>> I suppose it is a mercy that >>> 'evil capitalist running dogs' is out of fashion these days. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On >>> November 19, 2014 2:52:03 PM Sivasubramanian M >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Dear >>>> Guru, >>>> >>>> ​(You >>>> (Guru) said: ​WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have >>>> seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of >>>> Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from >>>> using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in >>>> authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, >>>> their unregulated work also is structuring our participation in the >>>> information society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also >>>> understand how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on >>>> extraordinary programme of global >>>> surveillance >>>> >>>> ​If such as strong generalization of big >>>> business is to be accepted as fair and valid, then all those who subscribe >>>> to such a generalization may have to go back to the WSIS declarations and >>>> summarily exclude Business as a Stakeholder group, and then declare that >>>> Internet Governance ought to be a process with two stakeholder groups - >>>> Government + Civil Society. No, no, on second thoughts I see your >>>> reference to Snowden and USG+, so the Civil Society could exclude >>>> Government from Internet Governance, and declare that Internet Governance >>>> must be reinvented as a single stakeholder group process, with Civil >>>> Society as the only stakeholder group. >>>> >>>> Seriously, if WSIS had committed to build a >>>> "people-centred, inclusive and >>>> development-oriented Information Society​", what happens to >>>> inclusiveness and development with such a position on Big Business? >>>> ​ >>>> >>>> And, why this hatred for big business? Most >>>> progress in this world has happened because of enterprise, much more >>>> because of business than because of Government. Granted, some of the >>>> information technology big businesses have worked with Governments on >>>> surveillance designs, and even there, we do not know how of much of such >>>> cooperation came out of a desire for profit and how much of it was forced >>>> by arm-twisting or by milder pressures in so many subtle and imaginative >>>> ways. >>>> >>>> Irrespective >>>> of how WEF's role has been articulated at the moment, it is a very >>>> positive development to bring in the WEF. ​WEF >>>> participation suddenly expands business participation to a world of >>>> business outside the IT sector, so WEF's attention to IG issues might >>>> by itself act as a balancing influence within the corporate world, because >>>> many of these Big Businesses are Internet "users" >>>> themselves. ​Some >>>> of these Big Businesses are possibly charitable in unknown ways. What is >>>> needed here is strong support at the moment, and we could >>>> ​eventually >>>> ​work towards a >>>> greater balance across stakeholder groups.​ ​ >>>> >>>> Sivasubramanian M >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Guru wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Mawaki >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I would like to cite from two sources: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> A. WSIS Declaration of Principles - >>>> http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html >>>> (the very >>>> first two clauses) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world*, *assembled >>>> in Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World >>>> Summit on the Information Society,* declare our common desire and >>>> commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and >>>> development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, >>>> access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling >>>> individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential >>>> in promoting their sustainable development and improving their >>>> quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the >>>> Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the >>>> Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>>> >>>> 2. Our challenge* is to harness the potential of information and >>>> communication technology to promote the development goals of the >>>> Millennium Declaration, namely the eradication of extreme poverty >>>> and hunger; achievement of universal primary education; promotion of >>>> gender equality and empowerment of women; reduction of child >>>> mortality; improvement of maternal health; to combat HIV/AIDS, >>>> malaria and other diseases; ensuring environmental sustainability; >>>> and development of global partnerships for development for the >>>> attainment of a more peaceful, just and prosperous world. We also >>>> reiterate our commitment to the achievement of sustainable >>>> development and agreed development goals, as contained in the >>>> Johannesburg Declaration and Plan of Implementation and the >>>> Monterrey Consensus, and other outcomes of relevant United Nations >>>> Summits. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I now will cite from the WEF site - >>>> http://www.weforum.org/our-members >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Begin >>>> >>>> Our Members >>>> >>>> The World Economic Forum is a membership organization. Our Members >>>> comprise 1,000 of the world’s top corporations, global enterprises >>>> usually with more than US$ 5 billion in turnover. These enterprises >>>> rank among the top companies within their industry and play a >>>> leading role in shaping the future of their industry and region. >>>> Some of our Member companies join the Forum’s Strategic and Industry >>>> Partnership communities, which are designed to deepen their >>>> engagement with the Forum’s events, project and initiatives. The >>>> Forum’s Members are at the heart of all our activities. >>>> >>>> End >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It is clear that WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have >>>> seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of >>>> Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart >>>> from using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in >>>> authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated >>>> work also is structuring our participation in the information >>>> society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand >>>> how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on >>>> extraordinary programme of global surveillance, which helps them in >>>> their goals of political-economic domination / colonisation >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Participating in forums anchored in such a space will only >>>> legitimise their power. I am clear that IGC should not participate >>>> in the NMI. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> thanks and regards >>>> >>>> Guru >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Gurumurthy Kasinathan >>>> >>>> Director, IT for Change >>>> >>>> In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC >>>> >>>> www.ITforChange.Net| Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 >>>> 26654134, >>>> 26536890 >>>> >>>> http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday 18 November 2014 05:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >>>> >>>> > Dear All, >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't >>>> repeat >>>> >>>> > the background details. In the middle of the night last >>>> night, before >>>> >>>> > hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing >>>> catch-up with >>>> >>>> > deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI >>>> >>>> > Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, >>>> they are >>>> >>>> > willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the >>>> NMI >>>> >>>> > Coordination Council. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership >>>> of CSCG >>>> >>>> > member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI >>>> process >>>> or >>>> >>>> > not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations >>>> we've been >>>> >>>> > having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and >>>> with the >>>> >>>> > membership of our respective organizations.) After this we >>>> should be >>>> >>>> > able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position >>>> about >>>> >>>> > our participation in the NMI process. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be >>>> brief. >>>> >>>> > State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement >>>> and, if >>>> >>>> > you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you >>>> if you >>>> >>>> > could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph >>>> (as we >>>> >>>> > just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see >>>> what I >>>> >>>> > mean.) >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> > Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 21 03:07:03 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 09:07:03 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428B0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thanks Izumi, clear language, great job, right approach. Well done and thanks for all the info. Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU Gesendet: Fr 21.11.2014 06:47 An: governance; Betreff: [governance] Re: My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration We all expected that the Wuzhen Declaration would be read out at the closing ceremony, but that did not happen. Later, at the lunch reception, MInister Lu Wei said in an informal conversation "oh, we don't call it a Declaration, since you do not agree with" to an American guest. It remains to be seen, however, if they will still announce it at the 3 pm Press Conference (or not). izumi 2014-11-21 11:00 GMT+09:00 Izumi AIZU : > Here is what I just sent to the organizing committee of the World Internet > Conference. > > Izumi > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Izumi AIZU > Date: 2014-11-21 10:59 GMT+09:00 > Subject: My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration > To: Organizing Committee of World Internet Conference > > > Dear Sir/madam, > > I have been enjoying the WIC so much. Thank you for creating and sharing > this wonderful event. > > I agree with the theme - Internet governance for all - or Interconnected > world shared and governed by all. I appreciate the open dialogue sessions. > > Now, to the Wuzhen Declaration, I would like to make following comments > for the record as an active member of the Civil Society engaged in Internet > Governance and Information Society issues and make my humble reservation. > > First, getting the draft in the middle of the night and the deadline of 8 > am for any revision is impossible to accommodate. This is against the > spirit of "shared and governed by all". > > Second, there is no mention of "Multistakeholder" process or approach > which has been well accepted by most, if not all, of stakeholders at ICANN, > IGF, and other international fora for Internet governance mechanisms. Even > though there are a lot of room for improvement and reform, simply ignoring > this principle from the declaration, in my view, will greatly discredit the > value of our declaration. > > Also, there is no reference to WSIS Tunis Agenda, people-centered > information society, that is a mistake. > > No mention of UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights also severely > undermines the value and effect. > > There is too much emphasis on economic and technological potential of the > Internet, but far less views expressed to social, human and cultural > dimensions Internet will contribute. > > Following points are also observed: > > - Consensus is missing from international cooperation > > - Internet as an permissionless innovation environment > > - Accountable participation as part of cyber security activities > > - Advancement of Internet technology should build on global rough > consensus of the engineering technical community (not politics) > > - Internet as an economy of growth and that China should play a bigger > role to help developing countries from her experience > > With these reasons, I like to make my reservation on record. > > I also like to mention the statement we co-signed: > > "Community Statement Presented at Wuzhen Summit" > > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141120_community_statement_presented_at_wuzhen_summit/ > > Thank you for your attention and understanding, I still remain committed > and connected with your great effort. > > Izumi Aizu > Senior Research Fellow and Professor, > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > www.anr.org > > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.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 jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com Fri Nov 21 03:25:20 2014 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 09:25:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <959D9AA2-690A-4557-BEF4-302880761075@difference.com.au> References: <1416554639.51899.YahooMailIosMobile@web28706.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <959D9AA2-690A-4557-BEF4-302880761075@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <9FD2089E-DB62-49E6-842A-3ECFEE340D61@gmail.com> Dear David, > I personally doubt JNC will rejoin the process unless WEF is effectively removed from any leadership role, but I'm sure they are more than capable of explaining their position themselves. No, no please keep on expressing what JNC thinks or is: - Anti-capitalists - Minority (does not count anyway) - Anti-commercial I think you got it right. if you wish everyone in the thread to clearly understand what JNC is trying, with difficulty, to say, I think you are making a great job, and essentially contributing in a very elegant fashion to enhance dialogue within CS Thanks for your help JC Please try to include in the list little details like - our opposition to 'equal footing decision making rights' to Corps, Gov, CS.. and a few other little details with probably less importance. Le 21 nov. 2014 à 08:39, David Cake a écrit : > I think if ISOC continues to not be involved, and there is no significant buy in from other I* orgs other than ICANN, then the NMI will not end up being a very significant process anyway. > > But I certainly think that if the CSCG, or individual groups within it, continue to negotiate, and particularly if there is a significant change that responds to ISOC concerns, then that is no problem. If CS members wish to participate in the process in the hope that happens, I have no problem with that. > > That said, I'd be surprised if ISOC change their position without huge changes to the process (possibly equivalent to more or less starting again). > > > > David > > > On 21 Nov 2014, at 3:23 pm, Arsene TUNGALI wrote: > >> David, you are right in many of the points raised but... >> >> Not participating, in my opinion, will result in no change of structure or so within NMI. However, being part of it will certainly shape it. We need people who will challenge them to sit on the same table for face-to-face debates. >> >> From my understanding, ISOC, JNC and other groups who are againts will be happy to join if there is some major changes happening. But trust me, no change will happen if we remain on arguing on mailing lists rather than on that table. >> >> I encourage those who are willing to join to go and help change the course of things within NMI so the other CS bodies can join as well:) >> >> ------------------ >> Arsene Tungali, >> Executive Director, Rudi International >> www.rudiinternational.org >> >> Founder, Mabingwa Forum >> www.mabingwa-forum.com >> Phone:+243993810967 >> >> ICANN Fellow | ISOC Member | Child Online Protection Advocate | Youth Leader | Internet Governance. >> Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) >> >> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone >> >> At 21 nov. 2014 09:10:39, David Cake<'dave at difference.com.au'> wrote:I think Deirdre speaks a fair bit of sense here. >> >> I don't think the two sides of this debate are as far apart some would suggest. >> >> The majority of CS certainly seemed to feel that the initial proposal for structure presented by the NMI founding organisations was very badly flawed. >> >> Now, it may be that there are some within JNC and other parts of civil society who are willing to write off the entire enterprise simply because WEF is one of the founding organisations, regardless of the specific role it has in the current structure. That position generally goes along with an opposition to all fora in which commercial organisations are full participants (a familiar JNC refrain), and I think we can say that is solidly a minority position within CS groups that participate in IG processes, and likely to stay that way. >> >> There are also those, primarily within the technical community, who feel that having transnational fora that can make meaningful decisions on anything related to the Internet, outside the narrow technical remit of the I* agencies, is a problem. There is perhaps a lingering sense of this within the ISOC decision (though there is more to it than that). But I get the feeling that the majority of us would cautiously welcome some more meaningful fora for addressing some broader IG issues, in the spirit of NetMundial. There are some who would rather than took place by an expanded role for the IGF, but I don't think there are many of us who think that is likely to happen in the near future. >> >> So, I think we are more or less left with a majority that feels that something with similar goals to the NMI would be valuable, but the current NMI as proposed has some very real problems in structure and process, especially with the significant role of the WEF. The big question is how to respond to the existence of this badly flawed initiative. >> >> So we essentially have divisions between those who feel the process and structure so far is so badly flawed that the best response is to ignore it and hope that a better initiative can be constructed after its failure, those who feel that with sufficient negotiation and pressure it can be wrenched into more acceptable shape, and those who feel that despite its significant flaws it might turn out to be a significant venue. I think these divisions are largely tactical (there are no insurmountable differences regarding the potential value of a forum with general aims similar to NMI, or on the significant flaws of this proposal to fill that space). Most of the arguments turn on whether or not it will turn out to be a significant forum. If it will be significant with or without CS, the argument is we should be involved. If ISOC withdrawal has already killed it, we should not bother participating. If CS involvement is the deciding factor on whether or not it will be acceptable, then how should we use that potential leverage, or should we simply drop it on principle. >> >> My opinion is that ISOC withdrawing has already holed it below the waterline, and it will not be a significant initiative unless it can drag the tech community back in to refloat it, and doing so would probably require the significant changes to the structure and process that CS wants. So, I'm probably in favour of no participation at this point, and maybe agreeing to participate at a later date if the structure is changed. But I regard that as a tactical decision at this point, and I certainly don't think anyone who does want to participate is letting down CS as a whole by choosing to do so. >> >> David >> >> >> On 21 Nov 2014, at 4:43 am, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >>> I asked in an earlier post whether >>> civil society has been manoeuvred into a position in which choosing >>> not to be involved becomes not really an option? >>> As civil society we have a very broad range of perspective and >>> therefore it is much more difficult for this group to act together >>> rapidly, as ISOC has done, when the nature of the issue itself is >>> still doubtful. Other people have already reminded us of the >>> hesitation before the NETmundial meeting in April, and the enthusiasm >>> (in general) which greeted the outcomes of that meeting, although >>> there are still some reservations – Renata just shared hers. >>> My sympathies lean towards a reluctance >>> to provide legitimacy, but my common sense suggests the following: >>> >>> >>> As far as I can see the Netmundial >>> Initiative will continue with or without us. >>> >>> Civil Society is split now (and >>> has been split for some time) so that any attempt at a boycott is >>> likely to fail because it will be incomplete. >>> >>> The invitation to join can be >>> presented in such a way as to provide legitimacy even if not all of >>> civil society agrees to accept. (This is what I meant by >>> “manoeuvred” above.) >>> >>> We have not been given a clear >>> picture of what the initiative is – it may prove to be something >>> that meets our approval – or not. >>> >>> It is very important that any >>> civil society representatives who join that committee should be >>> people who go with an open mind. Those who disapprove are absenting >>> themselves anyway; it would be better to have representatives who >>> are initially neutral but open to be persuaded one way or the other. >>> >>> Finally, should the initiative >>> prove to be unacceptable, a well publicised walkout by the 5 civil >>> society representatives (who are also representing “the world”) >>> would be much easier to arrange and much more effective than a >>> partial boycott before the meeting takes place. >>> >>> The discussion at the Geneva Internet >>> Conference about the Netmundial Initiative yesterday morning >>> (Wednesday 19th) was useful. On Tuesday during “Same >>> issues, different perspectives: overcoming policy silos in privacy >>> and data protection”, one >>> of the afternoon sessions, Brian >>> Trammell, Senior Researcher, Communication Systems Group, ETH Zurich, >>> presenting the “technical” perspective, said of the Internet >>> Engineering Task Force (IETF) >>> that members are volunteers who “participate as individuals”. >>> This is also true of the Internet Governance Caucus, and essentially >>> of civil society as a whole. One of the freedoms that our society tries to >>> provide is the right of the individual to follow the dictates of >>> her/his own conscience. My own choice is a pragmatic one. It should >>> in no way be seen as a criticism of anyone else's point of view or >>> decision. >>> Deirdre >>> >>> On 20 November 2014 11:41, Mawaki Chango wrote: >>> Fellas, >>> Some of us have raised questions about the views of the Brazilian party (CGI.br) in this NMI business. But I know they are in a delicate position and may be concerned to appear as judge and jury if they come out strong for a position (and we can expect which that position would be.) Flavio is not on the IGC list but he granted me the permission to forward to this list this message of his below, originally posted to the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN's GNSO. >>> Best, >>> >>> Mawaki >>> >>> >>> Fw: [NCSG-Discuss] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE >>> >>> On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:55 AM, Flávio Rech Wagner wrote: >>> >>> >>> Robin >>> >>> I have been informed that the "transitional council" of the NMI - NETmundial Initiative (which contains representatives from ICANN,CGI.br and WEF and is provisory, until the 25 names of the permanent council have been defined) is having an intense dialogue with CSCG (the Civil Society Coordination Group) and, together, they shall come to a solution for appointing names to the council by consensus and fully respecting nominations from Civil Society. There is no intention whatsoever from the transitional council to indicate names in a closed, top-down manner and without full endorsement from CSCG. >>> >>> The transitional council also expects to achieve similar solutions for appointing names that will represent other stakeholder groups. >>> >>> Please notice that CGI.br (the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee), which is one of the entities proposing the NMI, would never agree with top-down, closed decisions that would strongly undermine CGI's legitimacy as a true bottom-up, multistakeholder body. CGI.br is completely committed to preserve the NETmundial principles in the implementation of the NMI. >>> >>> Please remember also that, when NETmundial was proposed by the end of 2013, all of us in the global Internet Governance (IG) community, because of lack of information, were puzzled about its organization and possible success and outcomes. But the global community faced the challenge and transformed a vague idea into a successful event, with a true multistakeholder organization, with very open and transparent processes, and with a final document that was achieved by rough consensus and approved governance principles that were praised by most of the stakeholders (including human rights and other principles that are extremely valued by Civil Society). >>> >>> So let's try to transform NMI, which is still also a vague idea, into something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG and that fully respects the principles enshrined in the NETmundial declaration. >>> >>> Flávio >>> (NCUC member and member of the Board of CGI.br) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> >>> To 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 21 03:53:05 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 19:53:05 +1100 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <959D9AA2-690A-4557-BEF4-302880761075@difference.com.au> References: <1416554639.51899.YahooMailIosMobile@web28706.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <959D9AA2-690A-4557-BEF4-302880761075@difference.com.au> Message-ID: Hi David, Bear in mind that (as I understand it) ISOC has yet to fully consult its chapters and members about this decision so I wouldn’t be too surprised to see some adjustments to their current position. As Jeanette pointed out, ISOC was originally opposed to the formation of IGF, a position they reversed fairly quickly when IGF got under way. It’s also not many years ago that ISOC was arguing for NTIA to continue its oversight role of the root zone – a position that began to evolve after member chapters became involved in reversing that policy decision. So things do change. Ian Peter From: David Cake Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 6:39 PM To: Arsene TUNGALI Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; williams.deirdre at gmail.com Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative I think if ISOC continues to not be involved, and there is no significant buy in from other I* orgs other than ICANN, then the NMI will not end up being a very significant process anyway. But I certainly think that if the CSCG, or individual groups within it, continue to negotiate, and particularly if there is a significant change that responds to ISOC concerns, then that is no problem. If CS members wish to participate in the process in the hope that happens, I have no problem with that. That said, I'd be surprised if ISOC change their position without huge changes to the process (possibly equivalent to more or less starting again). I personally doubt JNC will rejoin the process unless WEF is effectively removed from any leadership role, but I'm sure they are more than capable of explaining their position themselves. David On 21 Nov 2014, at 3:23 pm, Arsene TUNGALI wrote: David, you are right in many of the points raised but... Not participating, in my opinion, will result in no change of structure or so within NMI. However, being part of it will certainly shape it. We need people who will challenge them to sit on the same table for face-to-face debates. From my understanding, ISOC, JNC and other groups who are againts will be happy to join if there is some major changes happening. But trust me, no change will happen if we remain on arguing on mailing lists rather than on that table. I encourage those who are willing to join to go and help change the course of things within NMI so the other CS bodies can join as well:) ------------------ Arsene Tungali, Executive Director, Rudi International www.rudiinternational.org Founder, Mabingwa Forum www.mabingwa-forum.com Phone:+243993810967 ICANN Fellow | ISOC Member | Child Online Protection Advocate | Youth Leader | Internet Governance. Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone At 21 nov. 2014 09:10:39, David Cake<'dave at difference.com.au'> wrote:I think Deirdre speaks a fair bit of sense here. I don't think the two sides of this debate are as far apart some would suggest. The majority of CS certainly seemed to feel that the initial proposal for structure presented by the NMI founding organisations was very badly flawed. Now, it may be that there are some within JNC and other parts of civil society who are willing to write off the entire enterprise simply because WEF is one of the founding organisations, regardless of the specific role it has in the current structure. That position generally goes along with an opposition to all fora in which commercial organisations are full participants (a familiar JNC refrain), and I think we can say that is solidly a minority position within CS groups that participate in IG processes, and likely to stay that way. There are also those, primarily within the technical community, who feel that having transnational fora that can make meaningful decisions on anything related to the Internet, outside the narrow technical remit of the I* agencies, is a problem. There is perhaps a lingering sense of this within the ISOC decision (though there is more to it than that). But I get the feeling that the majority of us would cautiously welcome some more meaningful fora for addressing some broader IG issues, in the spirit of NetMundial. There are some who would rather than took place by an expanded role for the IGF, but I don't think there are many of us who think that is likely to happen in the near future. So, I think we are more or less left with a majority that feels that something with similar goals to the NMI would be valuable, but the current NMI as proposed has some very real problems in structure and process, especially with the significant role of the WEF. The big question is how to respond to the existence of this badly flawed initiative. So we essentially have divisions between those who feel the process and structure so far is so badly flawed that the best response is to ignore it and hope that a better initiative can be constructed after its failure, those who feel that with sufficient negotiation and pressure it can be wrenched into more acceptable shape, and those who feel that despite its significant flaws it might turn out to be a significant venue. I think these divisions are largely tactical (there are no insurmountable differences regarding the potential value of a forum with general aims similar to NMI, or on the significant flaws of this proposal to fill that space). Most of the arguments turn on whether or not it will turn out to be a significant forum. If it will be significant with or without CS, the argument is we should be involved. If ISOC withdrawal has already killed it, we should not bother participating. If CS involvement is the deciding factor on whether or not it will be acceptable, then how should we use that potential leverage, or should we simply drop it on principle. My opinion is that ISOC withdrawing has already holed it below the waterline, and it will not be a significant initiative unless it can drag the tech community back in to refloat it, and doing so would probably require the significant changes to the structure and process that CS wants. So, I'm probably in favour of no participation at this point, and maybe agreeing to participate at a later date if the structure is changed. But I regard that as a tactical decision at this point, and I certainly don't think anyone who does want to participate is letting down CS as a whole by choosing to do so. David On 21 Nov 2014, at 4:43 am, Deirdre Williams wrote: I asked in an earlier post whether civil society has been manoeuvred into a position in which choosing not to be involved becomes not really an option? As civil society we have a very broad range of perspective and therefore it is much more difficult for this group to act together rapidly, as ISOC has done, when the nature of the issue itself is still doubtful. Other people have already reminded us of the hesitation before the NETmundial meeting in April, and the enthusiasm (in general) which greeted the outcomes of that meeting, although there are still some reservations – Renata just shared hers. My sympathies lean towards a reluctance to provide legitimacy, but my common sense suggests the following: 1.. As far as I can see the Netmundial Initiative will continue with or without us. 2.. Civil Society is split now (and has been split for some time) so that any attempt at a boycott is likely to fail because it will be incomplete. 3.. The invitation to join can be presented in such a way as to provide legitimacy even if not all of civil society agrees to accept. (This is what I meant by “manoeuvred” above.) 4.. We have not been given a clear picture of what the initiative is – it may prove to be something that meets our approval – or not. 5.. It is very important that any civil society representatives who join that committee should be people who go with an open mind. Those who disapprove are absenting themselves anyway; it would be better to have representatives who are initially neutral but open to be persuaded one way or the other. 6.. Finally, should the initiative prove to be unacceptable, a well publicised walkout by the 5 civil society representatives (who are also representing “the world”) would be much easier to arrange and much more effective than a partial boycott before the meeting takes place. The discussion at the Geneva Internet Conference about the Netmundial Initiative yesterday morning (Wednesday 19th) was useful. On Tuesday during “Same issues, different perspectives: overcoming policy silos in privacy and data protection”, one of the afternoon sessions, Brian Trammell, Senior Researcher, Communication Systems Group, ETH Zurich, presenting the “technical” perspective, said of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) that members are volunteers who “participate as individuals”. This is also true of the Internet Governance Caucus, and essentially of civil society as a whole. One of the freedoms that our society tries to provide is the right of the individual to follow the dictates of her/his own conscience. My own choice is a pragmatic one. It should in no way be seen as a criticism of anyone else's point of view or decision. Deirdre On 20 November 2014 11:41, Mawaki Chango wrote: Fellas, Some of us have raised questions about the views of the Brazilian party (CGI.br) in this NMI business. But I know they are in a delicate position and may be concerned to appear as judge and jury if they come out strong for a position (and we can expect which that position would be.) Flavio is not on the IGC list but he granted me the permission to forward to this list this message of his below, originally posted to the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN's GNSO. Best, Mawaki Fw: [NCSG-Discuss] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:55 AM, Flávio Rech Wagner wrote: Robin I have been informed that the "transitional council" of the NMI - NETmundial Initiative (which contains representatives from ICANN,CGI.br and WEF and is provisory, until the 25 names of the permanent council have been defined) is having an intense dialogue with CSCG (the Civil Society Coordination Group) and, together, they shall come to a solution for appointing names to the council by consensus and fully respecting nominations from Civil Society. There is no intention whatsoever from the transitional council to indicate names in a closed, top-down manner and without full endorsement from CSCG. The transitional council also expects to achieve similar solutions for appointing names that will represent other stakeholder groups. Please notice that CGI.br (the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee), which is one of the entities proposing the NMI, would never agree with top-down, closed decisions that would strongly undermine CGI's legitimacy as a true bottom-up, multistakeholder body. CGI.br is completely committed to preserve the NETmundial principles in the implementation of the NMI. Please remember also that, when NETmundial was proposed by the end of 2013, all of us in the global Internet Governance (IG) community, because of lack of information, were puzzled about its organization and possible success and outcomes. But the global community faced the challenge and transformed a vague idea into a successful event, with a true multistakeholder organization, with very open and transparent processes, and with a final document that was achieved by rough consensus and approved governance principles that were praised by most of the stakeholders (including human rights and other principles that are extremely valued by Civil Society). So let's try to transform NMI, which is still also a vague idea, into something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG and that fully respects the principles enshrined in the NETmundial declaration. Flávio (NCUC member and member of the Board of CGI.br) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Fri Nov 21 04:03:04 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 17:03:04 +0800 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <1416554639.51899.YahooMailIosMobile@web28706.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <959D9AA2-690A-4557-BEF4-302880761075@difference.com.au> Message-ID: On 21 Nov 2014, at 4:53 pm, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi David, > > Bear in mind that (as I understand it) ISOC has yet to fully consult its chapters and members about this decision so I wouldn’t be too surprised to see some adjustments to their current position. That is true - but I understand this was a decision of the Board of Trustees, which is a fairly large group that includes members from a multiple chapters, so I think it relatively unlikely that broader consultation will change it too much. I think if their position changes, it would be more likely to be due to changes to the NMI proposal. > As Jeanette pointed out, ISOC was originally opposed to the formation of IGF, a position they reversed fairly quickly when IGF got under way. It’s also not many years ago that ISOC was arguing for NTIA to continue its oversight role of the root zone – a position that began to evolve after member chapters became involved in reversing that policy decision. Absolutely. I don't think ISOC will necessarily maintain opposition to the idea of something like NMI. But will NMI itself change enough to become that something? Cheers David (FWIW, I'm a member of ISOC-AU, but just a member, I have no particular insight into their thinking) > > So things do change. > > Ian Peter > > From: David Cake > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 6:39 PM > To: Arsene TUNGALI > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; williams.deirdre at gmail.com > Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative > > I think if ISOC continues to not be involved, and there is no significant buy in from other I* orgs other than ICANN, then the NMI will not end up being a very significant process anyway. > > But I certainly think that if the CSCG, or individual groups within it, continue to negotiate, and particularly if there is a significant change that responds to ISOC concerns, then that is no problem. If CS members wish to participate in the process in the hope that happens, I have no problem with that. > > That said, I'd be surprised if ISOC change their position without huge changes to the process (possibly equivalent to more or less starting again). > > I personally doubt JNC will rejoin the process unless WEF is effectively removed from any leadership role, but I'm sure they are more than capable of explaining their position themselves. > > David > > > On 21 Nov 2014, at 3:23 pm, Arsene TUNGALI wrote: > >> >> David, you are right in many of the points raised but... >> >> Not participating, in my opinion, will result in no change of structure or so within NMI. However, being part of it will certainly shape it. We need people who will challenge them to sit on the same table for face-to-face debates. >> >> From my understanding, ISOC, JNC and other groups who are againts will be happy to join if there is some major changes happening. But trust me, no change will happen if we remain on arguing on mailing lists rather than on that table. >> >> I encourage those who are willing to join to go and help change the course of things within NMI so the other CS bodies can join as well:) >> >> ------------------ >> Arsene Tungali, >> Executive Director, Rudi International >> www.rudiinternational.org >> >> Founder, Mabingwa Forum >> www.mabingwa-forum.com >> Phone:+243993810967 >> >> ICANN Fellow | ISOC Member | Child Online Protection Advocate | Youth Leader | Internet Governance. >> Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) >> >> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone >> >> At 21 nov. 2014 09:10:39, David Cake<'dave at difference.com.au'> wrote:I think Deirdre speaks a fair bit of sense here. >> >> I don't think the two sides of this debate are as far apart some would suggest. >> >> The majority of CS certainly seemed to feel that the initial proposal for structure presented by the NMI founding organisations was very badly flawed. >> >> Now, it may be that there are some within JNC and other parts of civil society who are willing to write off the entire enterprise simply because WEF is one of the founding organisations, regardless of the specific role it has in the current structure. That position generally goes along with an opposition to all fora in which commercial organisations are full participants (a familiar JNC refrain), and I think we can say that is solidly a minority position within CS groups that participate in IG processes, and likely to stay that way. >> >> There are also those, primarily within the technical community, who feel that having transnational fora that can make meaningful decisions on anything related to the Internet, outside the narrow technical remit of the I* agencies, is a problem. There is perhaps a lingering sense of this within the ISOC decision (though there is more to it than that). But I get the feeling that the majority of us would cautiously welcome some more meaningful fora for addressing some broader IG issues, in the spirit of NetMundial. There are some who would rather than took place by an expanded role for the IGF, but I don't think there are many of us who think that is likely to happen in the near future. >> >> So, I think we are more or less left with a majority that feels that something with similar goals to the NMI would be valuable, but the current NMI as proposed has some very real problems in structure and process, especially with the significant role of the WEF. The big question is how to respond to the existence of this badly flawed initiative. >> >> So we essentially have divisions between those who feel the process and structure so far is so badly flawed that the best response is to ignore it and hope that a better initiative can be constructed after its failure, those who feel that with sufficient negotiation and pressure it can be wrenched into more acceptable shape, and those who feel that despite its significant flaws it might turn out to be a significant venue. I think these divisions are largely tactical (there are no insurmountable differences regarding the potential value of a forum with general aims similar to NMI, or on the significant flaws of this proposal to fill that space). Most of the arguments turn on whether or not it will turn out to be a significant forum. If it will be significant with or without CS, the argument is we should be involved. If ISOC withdrawal has already killed it, we should not bother participating. If CS involvement is the deciding factor on whether or not it will be acceptable, then how should we use that potential leverage, or should we simply drop it on principle. >> >> My opinion is that ISOC withdrawing has already holed it below the waterline, and it will not be a significant initiative unless it can drag the tech community back in to refloat it, and doing so would probably require the significant changes to the structure and process that CS wants. So, I'm probably in favour of no participation at this point, and maybe agreeing to participate at a later date if the structure is changed. But I regard that as a tactical decision at this point, and I certainly don't think anyone who does want to participate is letting down CS as a whole by choosing to do so. >> >> David >> >> >> On 21 Nov 2014, at 4:43 am, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >>> I asked in an earlier post whether >>> civil society has been manoeuvred into a position in which choosing >>> not to be involved becomes not really an option? >>> As civil society we have a very broad range of perspective and >>> therefore it is much more difficult for this group to act together >>> rapidly, as ISOC has done, when the nature of the issue itself is >>> still doubtful. Other people have already reminded us of the >>> hesitation before the NETmundial meeting in April, and the enthusiasm >>> (in general) which greeted the outcomes of that meeting, although >>> there are still some reservations – Renata just shared hers. >>> My sympathies lean towards a reluctance >>> to provide legitimacy, but my common sense suggests the following: >>> >>> >>> As far as I can see the Netmundial >>> Initiative will continue with or without us. >>> >>> Civil Society is split now (and >>> has been split for some time) so that any attempt at a boycott is >>> likely to fail because it will be incomplete. >>> >>> The invitation to join can be >>> presented in such a way as to provide legitimacy even if not all of >>> civil society agrees to accept. (This is what I meant by >>> “manoeuvred” above.) >>> >>> We have not been given a clear >>> picture of what the initiative is – it may prove to be something >>> that meets our approval – or not. >>> >>> It is very important that any >>> civil society representatives who join that committee should be >>> people who go with an open mind. Those who disapprove are absenting >>> themselves anyway; it would be better to have representatives who >>> are initially neutral but open to be persuaded one way or the other. >>> >>> Finally, should the initiative >>> prove to be unacceptable, a well publicised walkout by the 5 civil >>> society representatives (who are also representing “the world”) >>> would be much easier to arrange and much more effective than a >>> partial boycott before the meeting takes place. >>> >>> The discussion at the Geneva Internet >>> Conference about the Netmundial Initiative yesterday morning >>> (Wednesday 19th) was useful. On Tuesday during “Same >>> issues, different perspectives: overcoming policy silos in privacy >>> and data protection”, one >>> of the afternoon sessions, Brian >>> Trammell, Senior Researcher, Communication Systems Group, ETH Zurich, >>> presenting the “technical” perspective, said of the Internet >>> Engineering Task Force (IETF) >>> that members are volunteers who “participate as individuals”. >>> This is also true of the Internet Governance Caucus, and essentially >>> of civil society as a whole. One of the freedoms that our society tries to >>> provide is the right of the individual to follow the dictates of >>> her/his own conscience. My own choice is a pragmatic one. It should >>> in no way be seen as a criticism of anyone else's point of view or >>> decision. >>> Deirdre >>> >>> On 20 November 2014 11:41, Mawaki Chango wrote: >>> Fellas, >>> Some of us have raised questions about the views of the Brazilian party (CGI.br) in this NMI business. But I know they are in a delicate position and may be concerned to appear as judge and jury if they come out strong for a position (and we can expect which that position would be.) Flavio is not on the IGC list but he granted me the permission to forward to this list this message of his below, originally posted to the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN's GNSO. >>> Best, >>> >>> Mawaki >>> >>> >>> Fw: [NCSG-Discuss] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE >>> >>> On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:55 AM, Flávio Rech Wagner wrote: >>> >>> >>> Robin >>> >>> I have been informed that the "transitional council" of the NMI - NETmundial Initiative (which contains representatives from ICANN,CGI.br and WEF and is provisory, until the 25 names of the permanent council have been defined) is having an intense dialogue with CSCG (the Civil Society Coordination Group) and, together, they shall come to a solution for appointing names to the council by consensus and fully respecting nominations from Civil Society. There is no intention whatsoever from the transitional council to indicate names in a closed, top-down manner and without full endorsement from CSCG. >>> >>> The transitional council also expects to achieve similar solutions for appointing names that will represent other stakeholder groups. >>> >>> Please notice that CGI.br (the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee), which is one of the entities proposing the NMI, would never agree with top-down, closed decisions that would strongly undermine CGI's legitimacy as a true bottom-up, multistakeholder body. CGI.br is completely committed to preserve the NETmundial principles in the implementation of the NMI. >>> >>> Please remember also that, when NETmundial was proposed by the end of 2013, all of us in the global Internet Governance (IG) community, because of lack of information, were puzzled about its organization and possible success and outcomes. But the global community faced the challenge and transformed a vague idea into a successful event, with a true multistakeholder organization, with very open and transparent processes, and with a final document that was achieved by rough consensus and approved governance principles that were praised by most of the stakeholders (including human rights and other principles that are extremely valued by Civil Society). >>> >>> So let's try to transform NMI, which is still also a vague idea, into something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG and that fully respects the principles enshrined in the NETmundial declaration. >>> >>> Flávio >>> (NCUC member and member of the Board of CGI.br) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> >>> To 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Fri Nov 21 04:05:48 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 09:05:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for candidates to IGC co-coordinatorship In-Reply-To: References: <20141119171332.Horde.-ida3e_MOQXkL8blFMumEw1@www.ciencitec.com> <1416462995.71905.YahooMailBasic@web172503.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: With (your) wisdom, there is no weight you cannot handle... Please consider positively. M. On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Akinremi Peter Taiwo < compsoftnet at gmail.com> wrote: > Would have love to embrace this opportunity but still considering the > weight... > On Nov 20, 2014 1:34 PM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: > >> Thanks Analia, your candidacy is noted. We will let you know in a few >> days the information you will need to submit as part of your candidacy. >> >> Vincent, do you mean to run for the election in order to figure out >> whether you'll get the chance? I'd encourage you to do so. Please confirm. >> Thanks >> >> /Mawaki's droid agent >> On Nov 20, 2014 10:52 AM, "Analia Aspis" wrote: >> >>> I would like to volunteer. I am trying to raise IG debate among my >>> country Argentina, as well as regionally. I have activily participate in >>> remote hub coordinatios as well as organizing student research group. >>> Kind regards, >>> Analía Aspis >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 2:56 AM, vincent solomon >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I would love this opportunity but weather i get the chance is another >>>> thing . >>>> >>>> >>>> "Limitations live only in our minds. But if we use our imaginations, >>>> our possibilities become limitless" >>>> >>>> NAME: VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA >>>> CONTACT: +256 773307045 / +256 713307045 / +256 753307045 >>>> EMAIL:aliama.vincent at cit.mak.ac.ug / vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk / >>>> vinsoloster at gmail.com >>>> Skype : vinsolo2 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------- >>>> On Wed, 19/11/14, jfcallo at ciencitec.com wrote: >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT: Call for candidates to IGC >>>> co-coordinatorship >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Mwendwa Kivuva" < >>>> Kivuva at transworldafrica.com>, "Mawaki Chango" >>>> Date: Wednesday, 19 November, 2014, 20:13 >>>> >>>> English >>>> Mrs. And Gentlemen >>>> I come >>>> voluntarily to support these activities, I regret to say >>>> that >>>> for more than a year Chapter of >>>> ISOC-Perú ago, has no activity, >>>> despite >>>> having reported to Ted Mooney on the discrimination of the >>>> >>>> current management, has not done anything , >>>> I call upon the >>>> International Community >>>> of ISOC, to do something for Lima, Perú. >>>> Thank you >>>> Joseph F. Callo >>>> Romero >>>> Founder of ISOC-Perú >>>> >>>> Español >>>> Sras. >>>> y Señores >>>> Me presento voluntariamente para >>>> apoyar estas actividades, lamento >>>> decir >>>> que desde hace mas de un año el Capitulo de ISOC-Peru, no >>>> tiene >>>> actividad alguna, a pesar de haber >>>> denunciado a Ted Mooney, sobre la >>>> discriminación del actual directivo, no se ha >>>> hecho nada, hago un >>>> llamado a la >>>> Comunidad Internacional de ISOC, para que haga algo por >>>> >>>> Lima, Perú. >>>> Gracias >>>> José F. Callo Romero >>>> Fundador >>>> de ISOC-Perú >>>> >>>> >>>> Mwendwa Kivuva >>>> escribió: >>>> >>>> > Thanks >>>> Mawaki, >>>> > >>>> > Though it >>>> would be a great experience being an IGC coordinator, >>>> I'm >>>> > not ready for the >>>> responsibility this time round. Maybe after a year. >>>> > If I take it, I risk spreading myself too >>>> thin. >>>> > >>>> > Regards >>>> > ______________________ >>>> > Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya >>>> > L: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lordmwesh >>>> > B: http://lord.me.ke/ >>>> > >>>> T: 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 19 November 2014 06:12, Mawaki Chango >>>> wrote: >>>> >> Mwendwa, I got excited for >>>> two reasons: 1) that there was a reply to this >>>> >> thread, and 2) seeing your name and >>>> thinking there we have a good candidate! >>>> >> Oh well, I guess I'll have to be a >>>> little more patient on this one. Thanks >>>> >> for your nice words anyway. >>>> >> >>>> >> Mawaki >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:30 AM, >>>> Mwendwa Kivuva >>>> >> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Thanks Mawaki, you did an >>>> excellent job at the IGC with much energy >>>> >>> and dedication. As we have seen >>>> before, the work of the coordinator is >>>> >>> not an easy one. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> We >>>> salute you >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On 18/11/2014, Mawaki Chango >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> > Dear All, >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> >>>> > Now that the excitement of the new MAG is over it's >>>> time for us at the >>>> >>> > IGC >>>> >>> > to have our own election. We >>>> need to elect a second Co-coordinator. The >>>> >>> > results of the elections for >>>> new Co-coordinators a year ago gave Mawaki >>>> >>> > a >>>> >>> > one year term. As he already >>>> suggested at several occasions including >>>> >>> > during the election last >>>> year, he is not in position to serve two more >>>> >>> > years. In other words, Mawaki >>>> does not intend to stand again. >>>> >>> >>>> > >>>> >>> > We invite members of >>>> the IGC to nominate candidates (please check with >>>> >>> > them >>>> >>> > first about their willingness >>>> to serve), or to nominate themselves as a >>>> >>> > co-coordinator to serve from >>>> 2015-2017. >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > Nominations will be open >>>> until 19th December, midnight UTC. >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> >>>> > Best regards, >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > Mawaki Chango >>>> >>> > Deirdre Williams >>>> >>> > IGC Co-coordinators >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> -- >>>> >>> >>>> ______________________ >>>> >>> 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. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Inline Attachment Follows----- >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on >>>> the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information >>>> and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's >>>> charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Fri Nov 21 04:12:43 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 17:12:43 +0800 Subject: [governance] My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428B0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428B0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <379D159B-6A67-4AE9-9029-A46139BF4E1A@difference.com.au> Yes, +1 to everything Wolfgang said. I appreciated the updates, and think you took the right approach. David On 21 Nov 2014, at 4:07 pm, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Thanks Izumi, > > clear language, great job, right approach. Well done and thanks for all the info. > > Wolfgang > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU > Gesendet: Fr 21.11.2014 06:47 > An: governance; > Betreff: [governance] Re: My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration > > We all expected that the Wuzhen Declaration would be read out at the > closing ceremony, but that did not happen. > > Later, at the lunch reception, MInister Lu Wei said in an informal > conversation "oh, we don't call it a Declaration, since you do not agree > with" to an American guest. > > It remains to be seen, however, if they will still announce it at the 3 pm > Press Conference (or not). > > izumi > > > > > 2014-11-21 11:00 GMT+09:00 Izumi AIZU : > >> Here is what I just sent to the organizing committee of the World Internet >> Conference. >> >> Izumi >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Izumi AIZU >> Date: 2014-11-21 10:59 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration >> To: Organizing Committee of World Internet Conference >> >> >> Dear Sir/madam, >> >> I have been enjoying the WIC so much. Thank you for creating and sharing >> this wonderful event. >> >> I agree with the theme - Internet governance for all - or Interconnected >> world shared and governed by all. I appreciate the open dialogue sessions. >> >> Now, to the Wuzhen Declaration, I would like to make following comments >> for the record as an active member of the Civil Society engaged in Internet >> Governance and Information Society issues and make my humble reservation. >> >> First, getting the draft in the middle of the night and the deadline of 8 >> am for any revision is impossible to accommodate. This is against the >> spirit of "shared and governed by all". >> >> Second, there is no mention of "Multistakeholder" process or approach >> which has been well accepted by most, if not all, of stakeholders at ICANN, >> IGF, and other international fora for Internet governance mechanisms. Even >> though there are a lot of room for improvement and reform, simply ignoring >> this principle from the declaration, in my view, will greatly discredit the >> value of our declaration. >> >> Also, there is no reference to WSIS Tunis Agenda, people-centered >> information society, that is a mistake. >> >> No mention of UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights also severely >> undermines the value and effect. >> >> There is too much emphasis on economic and technological potential of the >> Internet, but far less views expressed to social, human and cultural >> dimensions Internet will contribute. >> >> Following points are also observed: >> >> - Consensus is missing from international cooperation >> >> - Internet as an permissionless innovation environment >> >> - Accountable participation as part of cyber security activities >> >> - Advancement of Internet technology should build on global rough >> consensus of the engineering technical community (not politics) >> >> - Internet as an economy of growth and that China should play a bigger >> role to help developing countries from her experience >> >> With these reasons, I like to make my reservation on record. >> >> I also like to mention the statement we co-signed: >> >> "Community Statement Presented at Wuzhen Summit" >> >> >> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141120_community_statement_presented_at_wuzhen_summit/ >> >> Thank you for your attention and understanding, I still remain committed >> and connected with your great effort. >> >> Izumi Aizu >> Senior Research Fellow and Professor, >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> >> www.anr.org >> >> >> > > > -- >>> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Fri Nov 21 04:49:58 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 09:49:58 +0000 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for candidates to IGC co-coordinatorship In-Reply-To: References: <20141119171332.Horde.-ida3e_MOQXkL8blFMumEw1@www.ciencitec.com> <1416462995.71905.YahooMailBasic@web172503.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Before I leave for a trip in a couple of hours, I wanted to make sure I say this. Self-nomination: You do not have to forward it here on the list. You can send it to me directly or to Deirdre: williams (dot) deirdre (at) gmail (dot) com Third-party nomination: Please make sure your prospective nominee accept your nomination and then you can forward us his or her name as above. Alternatively, you can make public nomination on the list inviting your prospective nominee to respond by accepting or declining. Another variant of the same is that you send us a private email with your prospective nominee cc'ed on it, asking him or her to accept or decline in a reply to all, etc. In any event, all nominees who will have accepted their nomination will be asked to provide the following information directly to me at kichango (at) gmail (dot) com (NOT to this list), which will then be uploaded and made public on the Caucus website by the time the poll starts. 1) Name 2) Country you affiliate yourself with (nationality or residence) 3) Organizational/Network affiliations in the context of CS/Academia or in the context of ICTs 4) Disclosure of Conflict of Interest, if any. 5) Short Biography (you may also provide a link to your personal website or your Linkedin page if you have one.) 6) Why you think you would make a good co-coordinator for the IGC 7) Vision for the IGC 8) A picture of you (no more than 50 Kb headshot). We would be grateful if you can keep your text in 300 words or less. As I said previously, we hope to receive all nominations by 19th December, midnight UTC Best regards, Mawaki -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kboakye at gmail.com Fri Nov 21 05:14:43 2014 From: kboakye at gmail.com (Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:14:43 +0000 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for candidates to IGC co-coordinatorship In-Reply-To: References: <20141119171332.Horde.-ida3e_MOQXkL8blFMumEw1@www.ciencitec.com> <1416462995.71905.YahooMailBasic@web172503.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Mawaki, Could you kindly refresh us on the responsibilities of the Co-coordinator and how involving in terms of time commitment so those interested would be aware of what is expected of them before self-nominating or accepting when nominated. Apologies if this has already been circulated. Regards, Kwasi On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Before I leave for a trip in a couple of hours, I wanted to make sure I > say this. > > Self-nomination: You do not have to forward it here on the list. You can > send it to me directly or to Deirdre: williams (dot) deirdre (at) gmail > (dot) com > > Third-party nomination: Please make sure your prospective nominee accept > your nomination and then you can forward us his or her name as above. > Alternatively, you can make public nomination on the list inviting your > prospective nominee to respond by accepting or declining. Another variant > of the same is that you send us a private email with your prospective > nominee cc'ed on it, asking him or her to accept or decline in a reply to > all, etc. > > In any event, all nominees who will have accepted their nomination will be > asked to provide the following information directly to me at kichango (at) > gmail (dot) com (NOT to this list), which will then be uploaded and made > public on the Caucus website by the time the poll starts. > > 1) Name > 2) Country you affiliate yourself with (nationality or residence) > 3) Organizational/Network affiliations in the context of CS/Academia or in > the context of ICTs > 4) Disclosure of Conflict of Interest, if any. > 5) Short Biography (you may also provide a link to your personal website > or your Linkedin page if you have one.) > 6) Why you think you would make a good co-coordinator for the IGC > 7) Vision for the IGC > 8) A picture of you (no more than 50 Kb headshot). > > We would be grateful if you can keep your text in 300 words or less. > As I said previously, we hope to receive all nominations by 19th December, > midnight UTC > > Best regards, > > 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 > > -- *We should be taught not to wait for inspiration to start a thing. Action always generates inspiration. Inspiration seldom generates action. *-- *Frank Tibolt* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Nov 21 06:27:28 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 12:27:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <149c7681318.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20141121122728.28d36ab1@quill> Shaila Rao Mistry wrote: > If we wish to have our voice heard we need to be at the table. If we > are not there how can we voice opinions ,influence and shape policy > decisions. Regardless of the numerous pros and cons to joining NM, > the prevailing factor is to be a participating presence. When a new discourse venue is needed, shouldn't the process of creating a new discourse venue start with a public discussion process on how the new discourse venue should be structured and what its underlying assumptions and constraints should be? If civil society rushes to provide its participating presence, and hence its legitimizing presence, to just any process, we thereby destroy a key factor that could lead to the creation of a better kind of discourse venue where civil society would have not only the opportunity to be not only a “participating presence” but co-leaders in discourse processes! 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Nov 21 06:34:36 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 12:34:36 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <1416551594.31150.YahooMailIosMobile@web28703.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: JCN, you will note that things develop according to plan: to free digitality from amateurs in using their own strength. This is Aikido for Putin, Sun-Tsu for Chineses, multistkeholders for the USG, disarrayed architecture engineering for IETF, T&L for the CS, etc. you name it. Now, question is "whose plan"? The response is in the missing fundamental consideration: architectonics. How things realy work, the ***science*** of politics which is the ***art*** of commanding to these human free societal animals, whose sociability is bluntly facilitated by artificial pervasive services and influencable peripheral intelligence. The plan is just what science call a SOC, self-organized criticality, mathematics compute according to the laws of catastrophes, and networking has made us reach the conceptual core of complexity. This is what we used to call "chaos" - which also is fractal (rules are not dependent on the scale) and deterministic.(because there are rules, and the science of these rules is architectonics). What you describe is the way this SOC episode of ours is going to resolve. SOC resolutions are by emergences. These emergences are longer or shorter depending on the way the "stake holders" overstand (rastafari meeaning - entendre in French, entender in Spanish) what is going on and adequately contribute. This is just a simple part of the humanity's History. Don't worry too much we know the likely end of the story from the public international network prototype I had to moderate in the 80s and from our day to day life. There is the medium and there is the language. We still confuse them in a single protocol stack. What we are currently doing is splitting the transport stratum (TCP/IP, NDN; etc.) from the semiotic stratum (business, politics, volunteers, private life, etc. semantics). There were two ways at least to do it: within the protocol stack (this was the limited presentation OSI layer six) or in splitting the stack in two different parts. There is a long time I made my mind, the IAB just decided to consider this architectural issue (35 years later, but with two billions users more). Nothing complicate, just deeper in complexity. Interesting. jfc At 09:07 21/11/2014, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Jouriticnal wrote: >As we all know the Net Mundial is not a >international treaty, it is not seated on any >democratic legitimacy, it is not binding (to any >stakeholders). It is wishful thinking, whatever >we think it is. It has no road map. It has not >defined any robust process of further >consultation simply because it lacked any >legitimacy. It has given no definition of what >means "democratic multistakeholderism" probably >because the "grouping" did not really asked itself what it really meant. > >Will the current initiative have to deal with >all of these pending questions? Even re-write >part of what was agreed with some difficulty and reserve? > >Well if it is so, it is more than predictable >that this "initiative" will soon or later be >lost in an ocean of other non consequential >statements. With the asymmetry still at full speed. > >Is the NMI supposed to reassure the US >government to transition the IANA function to >ICANN (with cutting the direct link between >itself and IANA, replacing this link by another >one between itself and ICANN). Is this the NMI >mission? Right now, the IANA contract might >simply be renewed to give some extra time for clarifying the transition. > >But then why do we all bother? The NMI final >report is suppposedly being processed... So >Brazil would have simply be part of another >swindle, and the Brazilian UN speech sent to the >archives of this international institution >created in san Francisco, in 1944. "Circulez bonnes gens". > >I don't think anyone should worry about the fact >that such or such grouping self-appoints to >itself a mandate of delivering a message to the >world. The NMI initiative is right now of the >track of becoming another masquarade. What is >more depressing and concerning is the fact that >IG civil society is totally failing its function and democratic challenge. > >Again, would it be more clever for civil society (as composed today) to >- get together >- see how to best transform the IGF in a useful >forum, looking for becoming a really influential >body ( go and get some funding at ICANN, WEF, >BRAZIL as they look really concerned with the future of Internet) >- keep talking with any table, if this table >wishes to listen, and engage a conversation >(that can be done without endorsing the table). >One can simply wait for the outcome of any given >table. Civil society would always be able to >make its comment. No one here believes that >governments will obey to a statement by a WEF/ICANN/CGIbr. >- Assess its capacity to make progress >- Be transparent about its source of funds (keep >at bay the nice friends trying to twist the dialogue) > >If the current civil society participants are >unable to go in that direction, new participants >will take the lead, and send the not-ables to a >well deserved rest. The new ones will be a bit >more radical, and probably more efficient. > >With ISOC, JNC and others including some US >academics refusing to give a free ride ticket, >this initiative will just meet its destiny. And >so what? What will be the dramatic changes? Be >influential on something that has no >consequence, what's the big deal? Some have >expressed their idea of getting more acquainted >with the "enemy". I don't see WEF as an enemy, >and I don't see why I need to enter their bunker >by the lake with lock doors, video surveillance, >security guards, lacking some sense of >hospitality and welcome to visitors, to better >know what is WEF. It is more than well known to >any honest broker who wishes to get it clear. It >is for example already clear that the WEF vision >of BIG DATA comes in contradiction to what CS is >advocating in terms of protecting rights, and >not just human rights. But why in this thread so >far, no one was really concerned with this? > >On the contrary we might assist to another >terrible mass to praise free-markets to handle >any issues, including the public ones, thanks to >elitist equal footing. "The only thing you don't >want is more regulations" that was said during the GIP conference. > >During the GIF, isolated poor business >representatives complained that corporations >were not included of the Internet governance >debate - a joke! That probably explains why it >was hard for them to give the floor to other participants. > >Let's the divide get bigger, if this is all >what our imagination is allowing us to think >about. Seating 5 cs participants to NMI will >bring nothing to IG. Getting CS together would >bring much more. Let us see what a "democratic >multistakeholderism" will happen to be once the >WEF/ICANN/CGIbr will have had a second thought about it. > >Civil society is now aiming at a level zero of >Politics. And we look like babies. > >"En avoir ou pas" wrote Hemingway. > >JC > > > >Le 21 nov. 2014 à 07:33, Arsene TUNGALI a écrit : > >>Hi there, >> >>Here are my thoughts on this trend. >> >>Civil Society is a stakeholder and it has its >>power as others to influence processes. In my >>life, i learnt to not refuse to be part of a >>process just because i don't share 'some' >>principles from one of the organisers although >>it is something that is important and can have >>a global impact in my own life and the life of >>those i most care about. Instead, i take the >>opportunity to go and try to help them change >>their behaviors. If nothing changes, then i know what to do. >> >>Flavio (CGI) said in the mail Mawaki shared: >>''...So let's try to transform NMI, which is >>still also a vague idea, into something that is >>concrete and useful for the advancement of IG >>and that fully respects the principles >>enshrined in the NETmundial declaration.'' >> >>Let's be part of the NMI but let's also define >>clear points: 'what we will never endorse' and >>'what we need to work on as a CS agenda and >>give it to our 5 representatives'. We do have principles, right? >> >>We are at a big step of the history and not >>being part of this can be something future >>generations will never understand and will >>never forgive. We all know that they will go >>with or without us. Instead, if we go and >>things turn against our principles, then our >>'publicized' leave will have more sense than a >>simple boycott before giving it a try. This is >>a big responsibility and an important decision for the future of CS as a whole. >> >>These are personal views! >> >>Regards, >>A >>------------------ >>Arsene Tungali, >>Executive Director, Rudi International >>www.rudiinternational.org >> >>Founder, Mabingwa Forum >>www.mabingwa-forum.com >>Phone:+243993810967 >> >>ICANN Fellow | ISOC Member | Child Online >>Protection Advocate | Youth Leader | Internet Governance. >>Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) >> >>Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone >> >>At 21 nov. 2014 07:39:52, Suresh >>Ramasubramanian<'suresh at hserus.net'> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>I can't agree more. The other >>thing is you will definitely find other civil society organizations at the >>table, whatever the local consensus we achieve here is. >> >> >> >>On >>November 21, 2014 10:55:08 AM >>shailam at yahoo.com wrote: >> >>>Hi >>>If >>>we wish to have our voice heard we need to be at the table. If we are not >>>there how can we voice opinions ,influence and shape policy decisions. >>>Regardless of the numerous pros and cons to joining NM, the prevailing >>>factor is to be a participating presence. >>>Shaila Rao Mistry >>> >>>Sent from my iPhone >>>On Nov 19, 2014, at 1:35 >>>AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >>>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Even within civil society, >>>>include only those sections of civil society that still use jargon like >>>>neoliberal >>>>I suppose it is a mercy that >>>>'evil capitalist running dogs' is out of fashion these days. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>On >>>>November 19, 2014 2:52:03 PM Sivasubramanian M >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>Dear >>>>>Guru, >>>>> >>>>>​(You >>>>>(Guru) said: ​ >>>>>WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have >>>>>seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of >>>>>Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from >>>>>using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in >>>>>authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, >>>>>their unregulated work also is structuring our participation in the >>>>>information society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also >>>>>understand how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on >>>>>extraordinary programme of global >>>>>surveillance >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>​If such as strong generalization of big >>>>>business is to be accepted as fair and >>>>>valid, then all those who subscribe >>>>>to such a generalization may have to go back to the WSIS declarations and >>>>>summarily exclude Business as a Stakeholder group, and then declare that >>>>>Internet Governance ought to be a process with two stakeholder groups - >>>>>Government + Civil Society. No, no, on second thoughts I see your >>>>>reference to Snowden and USG+, so the Civil Society could exclude >>>>>Government from Internet Governance, and declare that Internet Governance >>>>>must be reinvented as a single stakeholder group process, with Civil >>>>>Society as the only stakeholder group. >>>>>Seriously, i >>>>>f WSIS had committed to build a >>>>>" >>>>>people-centred, inclusive and >>>>>development-oriented Information Society >>>>>​", what happens to >>>>>inclusiveness and development with such a position on Big Business? >>>>>​ >>>>> >>>>>And, why this hatred for big business? Most >>>>>progress in this world has happened because of enterprise, much more >>>>>because of business than because of Government. Granted, some of the >>>>>information technology big businesses have worked with Governments on >>>>>surveillance designs, and even there, we do not know how of much of such >>>>>cooperation came out of a desire for profit and how much of it was forced >>>>>by arm-twisting or by milder pressures in so many subtle and imaginative >>>>>ways. >>>>>Irrespective >>>>>of how WEF's role has been articulated at the moment, it is a very >>>>>positive development to bring in the WEF >>>>>. >>>>>​ >>>>>WEF >>>>>participation suddenly expands business participation to a world of >>>>>business outside the IT sector, so WEF's attention to IG issues might >>>>>by itself act as a balancing influence >>>>>within the corporate world, because >>>>>many of these Big Businesses are Internet "users" >>>>>themselves. >>>>>​Some >>>>>of these Big Businesses are possibly charitable in unknown ways. What is >>>>>needed here is strong support at the moment, and w >>>>>e could >>>>>​eventually >>>>>​ >>>>>work towards a >>>>>greater balance across stakeholder groups.​ >>>>>​ >>>>> >>>>>Sivasubramanian M >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Guru wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Dear Mawaki >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I would like to cite from two sources: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>A. WSIS Declaration of Principles - >>>>>http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html >>>>> >>>>>(the very >>>>>first two clauses) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world*, *assembled >>>>>in Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World >>>>>Summit on the Information Society,* declare our common desire and >>>>>commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and >>>>>development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, >>>>>access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling >>>>>individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential >>>>>in promoting their sustainable development and improving their >>>>>quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the >>>>>Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the >>>>>Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>>>>2. Our challenge* is to harness the potential of information and >>>>>communication technology to promote the development goals of the >>>>>Millennium Declaration, namely the eradication of extreme poverty >>>>>and hunger; achievement of universal primary education; promotion of >>>>>gender equality and empowerment of women; reduction of child >>>>>mortality; improvement of maternal health; to combat HIV/AIDS, >>>>>malaria and other diseases; ensuring environmental sustainability; >>>>>and development of global partnerships for development for the >>>>>attainment of a more peaceful, just and prosperous world. We also >>>>>reiterate our commitment to the achievement of sustainable >>>>>development and agreed development goals, as contained in the >>>>>Johannesburg Declaration and Plan of Implementation and the >>>>>Monterrey Consensus, and other outcomes of relevant United Nations >>>>>Summits. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I now will cite from the WEF site - >>>>>http://www.weforum.org/our-members >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Begin >>>>>Our Members >>>>>The World Economic Forum is a membership organization. Our Members >>>>>comprise 1,000 of the world’s top corporations, global enterprises >>>>>usually with more than US$ 5 billion in turnover. These enterprises >>>>>rank among the top companies within their industry and play a >>>>>leading role in shaping the future of their industry and region. >>>>>Some of our Member companies join the Forum’s Strategic and Industry >>>>>Partnership communities, which are designed to deepen their >>>>>engagement with the Forum’s events, project and initiatives. The >>>>>Forum’s Members are at the heart of all our activities. >>>>>End >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>It is clear that WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have >>>>>seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of >>>>>Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart >>>>>from using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in >>>>>authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated >>>>>work also is structuring our participation in the information >>>>>society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand >>>>>how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on >>>>>extraordinary programme of global surveillance, which helps them in >>>>>their goals of political-economic domination / colonisation >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Participating in forums anchored in such a space will only >>>>>legitimise their power. I am clear that IGC should not participate >>>>>in the NMI. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>thanks and regards >>>>>Guru >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Gurumurthy Kasinathan >>>>>Director, IT for Change >>>>>In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC >>>>> >>>>>www.ITforChange.Net| >>>>>Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 >>>>>26654134, >>>>>26536890 >>>>> >>>>>http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>On Tuesday 18 November 2014 05:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >>>>> > Dear All, >>>>> > >>>>> > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't >>>>>repeat >>>>> > the background details. In the middle of the night last >>>>>night, before >>>>> > hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing >>>>>catch-up with >>>>> > deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI >>>>> > Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, >>>>>they are >>>>> > willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the >>>>>NMI >>>>> > Coordination Council. >>>>> > >>>>> > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership >>>>>of CSCG >>>>> > member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI >>>>>process or >>>>> > not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations >>>>>we've been >>>>> > having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and >>>>>with the >>>>> > membership of our respective organizations.) After this we >>>>>should be >>>>> > able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position >>>>>about >>>>> > our participation in the NMI process. >>>>> > >>>>> > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be >>>>>brief. >>>>> > State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement >>>>>and, if >>>>> > you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you >>>>>if you >>>>> > could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph >>>>>(as we >>>>> > just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see >>>>>what I >>>>> > mean.) >>>>> > >>>>> > Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. >>>>> > >>>>> > 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 > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >Content-Disposition: inline > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr Fri Nov 21 06:42:43 2014 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 11:42:43 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for candidates to IGC co-coordinatorship In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <676500395.2031766.1416570163717.JavaMail.yahoo@jws11132.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>     +1 Mwendwa on this: Could you kindly refresh us on the responsibilities of the Co-coordinator and how involving in terms of time commitment so those interested would be aware of what is expected of them before self-nominating or accepting when nominated. Regards,A ------------------------------------------------------Arsene Tungali,*Executive Director,Rudi Internationalemail: rudi.intl at yahoo.frFacebook: http://www.facebook.com/rudiinternational web: www.rudiinternational.wordpress.com *Agronomy Sciences, Goma UniversityBlog: http://tungali.blogspot.com/ Tel.: +243993810967, 853181857 Facebook-Twitter: Arsene Tungali Skype: arsenetungali Demmocratic Republic of Congo Le Vendredi 21 novembre 2014 12h14, Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong a écrit : Mawaki, Could you kindly refresh us on the responsibilities of the Co-coordinator and how involving in terms of time commitment so those interested would be aware of what is expected of them before self-nominating or accepting when nominated. Apologies if this has already been circulated. Regards,Kwasi On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: Before I leave for a trip in a couple of hours, I wanted to make sure I say this. Self-nomination: You do not have to forward it here on the list. You can send it to me directly or to Deirdre: williams (dot) deirdre (at) gmail (dot) com Third-party nomination: Please make sure your prospective nominee accept your nomination and then you can forward us his or her name as above.Alternatively, you can make public nomination on the list inviting your prospective nominee to respond by accepting or declining. Another variant of the same is that you send us a private email with your prospective nominee cc'ed on it, asking him or her to accept or decline in a reply to all, etc. In any event, all nominees who will have accepted their nomination will be asked to provide the following information directly to me at kichango (at) gmail (dot) com (NOT to this list), which will then be uploaded and made public on the Caucus website by the time the poll starts. 1) Name2) Country you affiliate yourself with (nationality or residence)3) Organizational/Network affiliations in the context of CS/Academia or in the context of ICTs4) Disclosure of Conflict of Interest, if any.5) Short Biography (you may also provide a link to your personal website or your Linkedin page if you have one.)6) Why you think you would make a good co-coordinator for the IGC7) Vision for the IGC8) A picture of you (no more than 50 Kb headshot). We would be grateful if you can keep your text in 300 words or less.As I said previously, we hope to receive all nominations by 19th December, midnight UTC Best regards, 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 -- We should be taught not to wait for inspiration to start a thing. Action always generates inspiration. Inspiration seldom generates action. -- Frank Tibolt ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Nov 21 07:28:56 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 13:28:56 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative References: <1416554639.51899.YahooMailIosMobile@web28706.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <959D9AA2-690A-4557-BEF4-302880761075@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> NMI is - in my eyes - not predetermined. It is an Invitation to be creative. It will become what the people make out of it. It will be project oriented. So when we talk about how VCS could become involved and what the conditions for our cooperation would be we should also talk about what projects we should propose. I would prioritize projects to support education and training, to enhance access in underserved regions and to look for innovative mechanisms to have human rights assessment procedures both for national and international Internet related public policy making in existing organizations. Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von David Cake Gesendet: Fr 21.11.2014 10:03 An: Ian Peter Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative On 21 Nov 2014, at 4:53 pm, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi David, > > Bear in mind that (as I understand it) ISOC has yet to fully consult its chapters and members about this decision so I wouldn't be too surprised to see some adjustments to their current position. That is true - but I understand this was a decision of the Board of Trustees, which is a fairly large group that includes members from a multiple chapters, so I think it relatively unlikely that broader consultation will change it too much. I think if their position changes, it would be more likely to be due to changes to the NMI proposal. > As Jeanette pointed out, ISOC was originally opposed to the formation of IGF, a position they reversed fairly quickly when IGF got under way. It's also not many years ago that ISOC was arguing for NTIA to continue its oversight role of the root zone - a position that began to evolve after member chapters became involved in reversing that policy decision. Absolutely. I don't think ISOC will necessarily maintain opposition to the idea of something like NMI. But will NMI itself change enough to become that something? Cheers David (FWIW, I'm a member of ISOC-AU, but just a member, I have no particular insight into their thinking) > > So things do change. > > Ian Peter > > From: David Cake > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 6:39 PM > To: Arsene TUNGALI > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; williams.deirdre at gmail.com > Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative > > I think if ISOC continues to not be involved, and there is no significant buy in from other I* orgs other than ICANN, then the NMI will not end up being a very significant process anyway. > > But I certainly think that if the CSCG, or individual groups within it, continue to negotiate, and particularly if there is a significant change that responds to ISOC concerns, then that is no problem. If CS members wish to participate in the process in the hope that happens, I have no problem with that. > > That said, I'd be surprised if ISOC change their position without huge changes to the process (possibly equivalent to more or less starting again). > > I personally doubt JNC will rejoin the process unless WEF is effectively removed from any leadership role, but I'm sure they are more than capable of explaining their position themselves. > > David > > > On 21 Nov 2014, at 3:23 pm, Arsene TUNGALI wrote: > >> >> David, you are right in many of the points raised but... >> >> Not participating, in my opinion, will result in no change of structure or so within NMI. However, being part of it will certainly shape it. We need people who will challenge them to sit on the same table for face-to-face debates. >> >> From my understanding, ISOC, JNC and other groups who are againts will be happy to join if there is some major changes happening. But trust me, no change will happen if we remain on arguing on mailing lists rather than on that table. >> >> I encourage those who are willing to join to go and help change the course of things within NMI so the other CS bodies can join as well:) >> >> ------------------ >> Arsene Tungali, >> Executive Director, Rudi International >> www.rudiinternational.org >> >> Founder, Mabingwa Forum >> www.mabingwa-forum.com >> Phone:+243993810967 >> >> ICANN Fellow | ISOC Member | Child Online Protection Advocate | Youth Leader | Internet Governance. >> Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) >> >> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone >> >> At 21 nov. 2014 09:10:39, David Cake<'dave at difference.com.au'> wrote:I think Deirdre speaks a fair bit of sense here. >> >> I don't think the two sides of this debate are as far apart some would suggest. >> >> The majority of CS certainly seemed to feel that the initial proposal for structure presented by the NMI founding organisations was very badly flawed. >> >> Now, it may be that there are some within JNC and other parts of civil society who are willing to write off the entire enterprise simply because WEF is one of the founding organisations, regardless of the specific role it has in the current structure. That position generally goes along with an opposition to all fora in which commercial organisations are full participants (a familiar JNC refrain), and I think we can say that is solidly a minority position within CS groups that participate in IG processes, and likely to stay that way. >> >> There are also those, primarily within the technical community, who feel that having transnational fora that can make meaningful decisions on anything related to the Internet, outside the narrow technical remit of the I* agencies, is a problem. There is perhaps a lingering sense of this within the ISOC decision (though there is more to it than that). But I get the feeling that the majority of us would cautiously welcome some more meaningful fora for addressing some broader IG issues, in the spirit of NetMundial. There are some who would rather than took place by an expanded role for the IGF, but I don't think there are many of us who think that is likely to happen in the near future. >> >> So, I think we are more or less left with a majority that feels that something with similar goals to the NMI would be valuable, but the current NMI as proposed has some very real problems in structure and process, especially with the significant role of the WEF. The big question is how to respond to the existence of this badly flawed initiative. >> >> So we essentially have divisions between those who feel the process and structure so far is so badly flawed that the best response is to ignore it and hope that a better initiative can be constructed after its failure, those who feel that with sufficient negotiation and pressure it can be wrenched into more acceptable shape, and those who feel that despite its significant flaws it might turn out to be a significant venue. I think these divisions are largely tactical (there are no insurmountable differences regarding the potential value of a forum with general aims similar to NMI, or on the significant flaws of this proposal to fill that space). Most of the arguments turn on whether or not it will turn out to be a significant forum. If it will be significant with or without CS, the argument is we should be involved. If ISOC withdrawal has already killed it, we should not bother participating. If CS involvement is the deciding factor on whether or not it will be acceptable, then how should we use that potential leverage, or should we simply drop it on principle. >> >> My opinion is that ISOC withdrawing has already holed it below the waterline, and it will not be a significant initiative unless it can drag the tech community back in to refloat it, and doing so would probably require the significant changes to the structure and process that CS wants. So, I'm probably in favour of no participation at this point, and maybe agreeing to participate at a later date if the structure is changed. But I regard that as a tactical decision at this point, and I certainly don't think anyone who does want to participate is letting down CS as a whole by choosing to do so. >> >> David >> >> >> On 21 Nov 2014, at 4:43 am, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >>> I asked in an earlier post whether >>> civil society has been manoeuvred into a position in which choosing >>> not to be involved becomes not really an option? >>> As civil society we have a very broad range of perspective and >>> therefore it is much more difficult for this group to act together >>> rapidly, as ISOC has done, when the nature of the issue itself is >>> still doubtful. Other people have already reminded us of the >>> hesitation before the NETmundial meeting in April, and the enthusiasm >>> (in general) which greeted the outcomes of that meeting, although >>> there are still some reservations - Renata just shared hers. >>> My sympathies lean towards a reluctance >>> to provide legitimacy, but my common sense suggests the following: >>> >>> >>> As far as I can see the Netmundial >>> Initiative will continue with or without us. >>> >>> Civil Society is split now (and >>> has been split for some time) so that any attempt at a boycott is >>> likely to fail because it will be incomplete. >>> >>> The invitation to join can be >>> presented in such a way as to provide legitimacy even if not all of >>> civil society agrees to accept. (This is what I meant by >>> "manoeuvred" above.) >>> >>> We have not been given a clear >>> picture of what the initiative is - it may prove to be something >>> that meets our approval - or not. >>> >>> It is very important that any >>> civil society representatives who join that committee should be >>> people who go with an open mind. Those who disapprove are absenting >>> themselves anyway; it would be better to have representatives who >>> are initially neutral but open to be persuaded one way or the other. >>> >>> Finally, should the initiative >>> prove to be unacceptable, a well publicised walkout by the 5 civil >>> society representatives (who are also representing "the world") >>> would be much easier to arrange and much more effective than a >>> partial boycott before the meeting takes place. >>> >>> The discussion at the Geneva Internet >>> Conference about the Netmundial Initiative yesterday morning >>> (Wednesday 19th) was useful. On Tuesday during "Same >>> issues, different perspectives: overcoming policy silos in privacy >>> and data protection", one >>> of the afternoon sessions, Brian >>> Trammell, Senior Researcher, Communication Systems Group, ETH Zurich, >>> presenting the "technical" perspective, said of the Internet >>> Engineering Task Force (IETF) >>> that members are volunteers who "participate as individuals". >>> This is also true of the Internet Governance Caucus, and essentially >>> of civil society as a whole. One of the freedoms that our society tries to >>> provide is the right of the individual to follow the dictates of >>> her/his own conscience. My own choice is a pragmatic one. It should >>> in no way be seen as a criticism of anyone else's point of view or >>> decision. >>> Deirdre >>> >>> On 20 November 2014 11:41, Mawaki Chango wrote: >>> Fellas, >>> Some of us have raised questions about the views of the Brazilian party (CGI.br) in this NMI business. But I know they are in a delicate position and may be concerned to appear as judge and jury if they come out strong for a position (and we can expect which that position would be.) Flavio is not on the IGC list but he granted me the permission to forward to this list this message of his below, originally posted to the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN's GNSO. >>> Best, >>> >>> Mawaki >>> >>> >>> Fw: [NCSG-Discuss] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE >>> >>> On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:55 AM, Flávio Rech Wagner wrote: >>> >>> >>> Robin >>> >>> I have been informed that the "transitional council" of the NMI - NETmundial Initiative (which contains representatives from ICANN,CGI.br and WEF and is provisory, until the 25 names of the permanent council have been defined) is having an intense dialogue with CSCG (the Civil Society Coordination Group) and, together, they shall come to a solution for appointing names to the council by consensus and fully respecting nominations from Civil Society. There is no intention whatsoever from the transitional council to indicate names in a closed, top-down manner and without full endorsement from CSCG. >>> >>> The transitional council also expects to achieve similar solutions for appointing names that will represent other stakeholder groups. >>> >>> Please notice that CGI.br (the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee), which is one of the entities proposing the NMI, would never agree with top-down, closed decisions that would strongly undermine CGI's legitimacy as a true bottom-up, multistakeholder body. CGI.br is completely committed to preserve the NETmundial principles in the implementation of the NMI. >>> >>> Please remember also that, when NETmundial was proposed by the end of 2013, all of us in the global Internet Governance (IG) community, because of lack of information, were puzzled about its organization and possible success and outcomes. But the global community faced the challenge and transformed a vague idea into a successful event, with a true multistakeholder organization, with very open and transparent processes, and with a final document that was achieved by rough consensus and approved governance principles that were praised by most of the stakeholders (including human rights and other principles that are extremely valued by Civil Society). >>> >>> So let's try to transform NMI, which is still also a vague idea, into something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG and that fully respects the principles enshrined in the NETmundial declaration. >>> >>> Flávio >>> (NCUC member and member of the Board of CGI.br) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> >>> To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Fri Nov 21 07:40:34 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 13:40:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <20141121122728.28d36ab1@quill> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <149c7681318.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20141121122728.28d36ab1@quill> Message-ID: <9130B033-D51D-44E9-A083-444CAC99431F@wzb.eu> Personally I don't think this can be discussed on such an abstract level. The IGF, for example, was created in a multilateral environment without a public discussion on how it should be structured. In fact, if there was any public discussion it started after the IGF was created. What I want to say is that there are no generally applicable procedures that would help us out of this messy situation. Jeanette On 21 November 2014 12:27:28 CET, Norbert Bollow wrote: >Shaila Rao Mistry wrote: > >> If we wish to have our voice heard we need to be at the table. If we >> are not there how can we voice opinions ,influence and shape policy >> decisions. Regardless of the numerous pros and cons to joining NM, >> the prevailing factor is to be a participating presence. > >When a new discourse venue is needed, shouldn't the process of creating >a new discourse venue start with a public discussion process on how the >new discourse venue should be structured and what its underlying >assumptions and constraints should be? > >If civil society rushes to provide its participating presence, and >hence its legitimizing presence, to just any process, we thereby >destroy a key factor that could lead to the creation of a better kind >of discourse venue where civil society would have not only the >opportunity to be not only a “participating presence” but co-leaders >in discourse processes! > >Greetings, >Norbert -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Fri Nov 21 08:12:55 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 13:12:55 +0000 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for candidates to IGC co-coordinatorship In-Reply-To: <676500395.2031766.1416570163717.JavaMail.yahoo@jws11132.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <676500395.2031766.1416570163717.JavaMail.yahoo@jws11132.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: As I replied to someone before... There is no pre-requisite other than being an IGC member. For interested members and prospective candidates, I would encourage you to visit the IGC website http://igcaucus.org/ and read the Charter, particularly the provisions on the Co-co duties. The job will require what you see from the outside and what you already know is entailed by coordinating a group such as IGC) and in the back end the maintenance of the membership list (responding to requests to join the list, etc.) then when the time comes for election, do the kind of thing I'm doing right now for the online election to take place. The rest depends on what you have to bring and whether the IGC membership is still willing to contribute substance or to engage in tit for tat discussions while watching others submit substantive inputs. You see, I cannot give you any specific quantification of the time commitment. The only thing I can say to you is that you will survive, most certainly. Cheers, Mawaki P.S. If you don't hear from me in the next couple of days, that will be because I'm traveling and other duties will have to take the front seat. On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Arsene TUNGALI wrote: > +1 Mwendwa on this: > Could you kindly refresh us on the responsibilities of the Co-coordinator > and how involving in terms of time commitment so those interested would be > aware of what is expected of them before self-nominating or accepting when > nominated. > > Regards, > A > > *------------------------------------------------------* > *Arsene Tungali,* > *Executive Director, > Rudi International > email: rudi.intl at yahoo.fr > Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/rudiinternational > web: www.rudiinternational.wordpress.com > > *Agronomy Sciences, Goma University > Blog: http://tungali.blogspot.com/ > Tel.: +243993810967, 853181857 > Facebook-Twitter: Arsene Tungali > Skype: arsenetungali > Demmocratic Republic of Congo > > > Le Vendredi 21 novembre 2014 12h14, Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong < > kboakye at gmail.com> a écrit : > > > Mawaki, > > Could you kindly refresh us on the responsibilities of the Co-coordinator > and how involving in terms of time commitment so those interested would be > aware of what is expected of them before self-nominating or accepting when > nominated. > > Apologies if this has already been circulated. > > Regards, > Kwasi > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > Before I leave for a trip in a couple of hours, I wanted to make sure I > say this. > > Self-nomination: You do not have to forward it here on the list. You can > send it to me directly or to Deirdre: williams (dot) deirdre (at) gmail > (dot) com > > Third-party nomination: Please make sure your prospective nominee accept > your nomination and then you can forward us his or her name as above. > Alternatively, you can make public nomination on the list inviting your > prospective nominee to respond by accepting or declining. Another variant > of the same is that you send us a private email with your prospective > nominee cc'ed on it, asking him or her to accept or decline in a reply to > all, etc. > > In any event, all nominees who will have accepted their nomination will be > asked to provide the following information directly to me at kichango (at) > gmail (dot) com (NOT to this list), which will then be uploaded and made > public on the Caucus website by the time the poll starts. > > 1) Name > 2) Country you affiliate yourself with (nationality or residence) > 3) Organizational/Network affiliations in the context of CS/Academia or in > the context of ICTs > 4) Disclosure of Conflict of Interest, if any. > 5) Short Biography (you may also provide a link to your personal website > or your Linkedin page if you have one.) > 6) Why you think you would make a good co-coordinator for the IGC > 7) Vision for the IGC > 8) A picture of you (no more than 50 Kb headshot). > > We would be grateful if you can keep your text in 300 words or less. > As I said previously, we hope to receive all nominations by 19th December, > midnight UTC > > Best regards, > > 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 > > > > > -- > *We should be taught not to wait for inspiration to start a thing. Action > always generates inspiration. Inspiration seldom generates action. *-- *Frank > Tibolt* > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Nov 21 08:22:58 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:22:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] JNC perspective on making Internet governance democratic (was Re: URGENT: Last call...) In-Reply-To: <146A4EC5-F62D-421E-98FB-E21C3CA21380@difference.com.au> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <1486537673.7522.1416390999726.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f29> <4D5FE9B9-60E9-4AE4-BC19-5A72B08E78A6@orange.fr> <146A4EC5-F62D-421E-98FB-E21C3CA21380@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <20141121142258.798a81b9@quill> On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:10:39 +0800 David Cake wrote: > That position generally goes along with an opposition to all fora in > which commercial organisations are full participants (a familiar JNC > refrain) That is not at all a JNC position, nor has that position (as far as I am aware) been advanced by any JNC member. For example my “International Wisdom Task Force” proposal (IWTF, see http://WisdomtaskForce.org ) invites commercial organizations to be full participants in the discourse process. (Note for clarity: That is at the current stage just my proposal, not a JNC proposal. I however believe the current version to be fully compatible with JNC's positions.) We (JNC) however object to ideas which are based on the assumption that no public policy decision-making is needed, or which propose a process for such decision-making which has no mechanism which can correct for the fact that the big corporations do not only have voice but also vast economic power. It is an age-old problem that some people control vastly more economic power than almost everyone else, and that the public policy outcomes are bad when such economic power is allowed to translate directly into power to influence public policy outcomes, as opposed to more democratic processes for determining public policy. In IWTF the proposed corrective mechanisms are first to start on a clear basis of human rights and “people oriented information society” values, second that discussion processes are encouraged to design the public policy recommendations they develop so that national parliaments are given a choice of different possible ways of balancing the interests of different stakeholders, and third that if that is felt to be necessary, the recommendation development process can be forked, leading to competing recommendations (with the burden of choice between them then being in the hands of national parliaments.) Of course I'm not asserting that this is the only possible form which a democracy-based model can take. But some kind of mechanism is needed to ensure that Internet governance qualifies as being democratic. While I agree that preventing any governance process which is not multistakeholder is better than putting Internet governance in the hands of a government agency which is not provided with any source of the required expertise, the idea “let's prevent any governance process which is not multistakeholder” does not contain any mechanism to achieve democratic governance in regard to those points where public interest oriented governance decisions are needed that go against the interests of some powerful corporations. For this reason, JNC objects to the idea of elevating that idea to the level of an ideology, as it is done in what we're referring to as the “equal-footing multistakeholder model”, a model that is described for example in the draft declaration which had been prepared for consideration by the São Paulo NetMundial meeting. That model is not compatible with the concept of democracy. > and I think we can say that is solidly a minority position within CS > groups that participate in IG processes, and likely to stay that way. The position of “opposition to all fora in which commercial organizations are full participants” is not just a minority position, it is to my best knowledge a strawman position which no-one has ever seriously proposed. By contrast, IMO the view that governance must be democratic, which JNC emphasizes, cannot possibly remain a minority position for very long regardless of whether that might currently be the case or not. I note that when JNC insisted at the São Paulo NetMundial meeting on the inclusion of that point in the concerned section of the outcome document, the JNC members who were there and pushed for that succeeded. I would furthermore point out that to my best knowledge all of JNC's positions are substantively compatible with a broad range of viewpoints political perspectives of the democratic political middle as well as many of those more on the left (like most of the political perspectives of civil society groups outside of the “Internet governance” specialization tend to be at least a bit on the left as far the traditional political spectrum is concerned), while what we're arguing against is not at all compatible with this broad set of perspectives. We're also fully capable of writing different texts that will in terms of choice of language be designed to appeal to different audiences while presenting the same substantive viewpoint. On this basis, I'm quite confident that even if you might be right that for whatever reason the majority among vocal participants on this list may currently go in the direction of disagreeing with JNC's insistence on the importance of democracy, that would not imply that things are likely to stay that way. JNC certainly has every intention of working hard to convince many of those who are currently unconvinced of the importance and feasibility of making Internet governance democratic. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 181 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From echeberria at isoc.org Fri Nov 21 09:22:48 2014 From: echeberria at isoc.org (Raul Echeberria) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:22:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <9130B033-D51D-44E9-A083-444CAC99431F@wzb.eu> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <149c7681318.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20141121122728.28d36ab1@quill> <9130B033-D51D-44E9-A083-444CAC99431F@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Jeanette: Let me just add some factual information on this. The creation of IGF (a Forum at that time) was an idea that emerged from the WGIG, a multistakeholder group, and that group included this option in its report. While you are right that the agreement to create the forum was achieved in a multilateral framework (WSIS 2005), it is also true that it was a public discussion and many of us from different stakeholders groups were involved in that discussion. The last point is that the form of the IGF, agendas, formats, and everything, has been since the beginning discussed in a multistakeholder manner. Raúl El 21/11/2014, a las 10:40, Jeanette Hofmann escribió: > Personally I don't think this can be discussed on such an abstract level. The IGF, for example, was created in a multilateral environment without a public discussion on how it should be structured. In fact, if there was any public discussion it started after the IGF was created. What I want to say is that there are no generally applicable procedures that would help us out of this messy situation. > Jeanette > > On 21 November 2014 12:27:28 CET, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Shaila Rao Mistry wrote: >> >>> If we wish to have our voice heard we need to be at the table. If we >>> are not there how can we voice opinions ,influence and shape policy >>> decisions. Regardless of the numerous pros and cons to joining NM, >>> the prevailing factor is to be a participating presence. >> >> When a new discourse venue is needed, shouldn't the process of creating >> a new discourse venue start with a public discussion process on how the >> new discourse venue should be structured and what its underlying >> assumptions and constraints should be? >> >> If civil society rushes to provide its participating presence, and >> hence its legitimizing presence, to just any process, we thereby >> destroy a key factor that could lead to the creation of a better kind >> of discourse venue where civil society would have not only the >> opportunity to be not only a “participating presence” but co-leaders >> in discourse processes! >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert > > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 jmalcolm at eff.org Fri Nov 21 11:52:44 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 08:52:44 -0800 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <1416554639.51899.YahooMailIosMobile@web28706.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <959D9AA2-690A-4557-BEF4-302880761075@difference.com.au> Message-ID: On Nov 21, 2014, at 1:03 AM, David Cake wrote: > Absolutely. I don't think ISOC will necessarily maintain opposition to the idea of something like NMI. But will NMI itself change enough to become that something? > > Cheers > > David (FWIW, I'm a member of ISOC-AU, but just a member, I have no particular insight into their thinking) And anyway, ISOC chapters don't necessarily follow the party line. Global ISOC is its own peculiar thing, often quite detached from the chapters. -- 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 21 12:01:01 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 09:01:01 -0800 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <1416554639.51899.YahooMailIosMobile@web28706.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <959D9AA2-690A-4557-BEF4-302880761075@difference.com.au> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <01f001d005ac$bbe05760$33a10620$@gmail.com> Wolfgang, I could be wrong but I read the below as referring to rather more than simply being "project oriented". Latest statement from NMI The aim is to strengthen the capacity of the multistakeholder Internet governance ecosystem to respond effectively in an open-source, on-demand manner to concrete challenges identified by individual stakeholders, whether on economic, social or security policy concerns or technical matters. https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-answers-co mmon-questions As I said earlier I'm looking forward to the multistakeholderization of global tax policy with Google and Amazon as full partners and of copyright policy with Disney as equal footing stakeholders (as at Netmundial for example). M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 4:29 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Cake; Ian Peter Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: AW: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative NMI is - in my eyes - not predetermined. It is an Invitation to be creative. It will become what the people make out of it. It will be project oriented. So when we talk about how VCS could become involved and what the conditions for our cooperation would be we should also talk about what projects we should propose. I would prioritize projects to support education and training, to enhance access in underserved regions and to look for innovative mechanisms to have human rights assessment procedures both for national and international Internet related public policy making in existing organizations. Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von David Cake Gesendet: Fr 21.11.2014 10:03 An: Ian Peter Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative On 21 Nov 2014, at 4:53 pm, Ian Peter < ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote: > Hi David, > > Bear in mind that (as I understand it) ISOC has yet to fully consult its chapters and members about this decision so I wouldn't be too surprised to see some adjustments to their current position. That is true - but I understand this was a decision of the Board of Trustees, which is a fairly large group that includes members from a multiple chapters, so I think it relatively unlikely that broader consultation will change it too much. I think if their position changes, it would be more likely to be due to changes to the NMI proposal. > As Jeanette pointed out, ISOC was originally opposed to the formation of IGF, a position they reversed fairly quickly when IGF got under way. It's also not many years ago that ISOC was arguing for NTIA to continue its oversight role of the root zone - a position that began to evolve after member chapters became involved in reversing that policy decision. Absolutely. I don't think ISOC will necessarily maintain opposition to the idea of something like NMI. But will NMI itself change enough to become that something? Cheers David (FWIW, I'm a member of ISOC-AU, but just a member, I have no particular insight into their thinking) > > So things do change. > > Ian Peter > > From: David Cake > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 6:39 PM > To: Arsene TUNGALI > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; williams.deirdre at gmail.com > Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS > participation in NETmundial Initiative > > I think if ISOC continues to not be involved, and there is no significant buy in from other I* orgs other than ICANN, then the NMI will not end up being a very significant process anyway. > > But I certainly think that if the CSCG, or individual groups within it, continue to negotiate, and particularly if there is a significant change that responds to ISOC concerns, then that is no problem. If CS members wish to participate in the process in the hope that happens, I have no problem with that. > > That said, I'd be surprised if ISOC change their position without huge changes to the process (possibly equivalent to more or less starting again). > > I personally doubt JNC will rejoin the process unless WEF is effectively removed from any leadership role, but I'm sure they are more than capable of explaining their position themselves. > > David > > > On 21 Nov 2014, at 3:23 pm, Arsene TUNGALI < arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr> wrote: > >> >> David, you are right in many of the points raised but... >> >> Not participating, in my opinion, will result in no change of structure or so within NMI. However, being part of it will certainly shape it. We need people who will challenge them to sit on the same table for face-to-face debates. >> >> From my understanding, ISOC, JNC and other groups who are againts will be happy to join if there is some major changes happening. But trust me, no change will happen if we remain on arguing on mailing lists rather than on that table. >> >> I encourage those who are willing to join to go and help change the >> course of things within NMI so the other CS bodies can join as well:) >> >> ------------------ >> Arsene Tungali, >> Executive Director, Rudi International www.rudiinternational.org >> >> Founder, Mabingwa Forum >> www.mabingwa-forum.com >> Phone:+243993810967 >> >> ICANN Fellow | ISOC Member | Child Online Protection Advocate | Youth Leader | Internet Governance. >> Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) >> >> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone >> >> At 21 nov. 2014 09:10:39, David Cake<'dave at difference.com.au'> wrote:I think Deirdre speaks a fair bit of sense here. >> >> I don't think the two sides of this debate are as far apart some would suggest. >> >> The majority of CS certainly seemed to feel that the initial proposal for structure presented by the NMI founding organisations was very badly flawed. >> >> Now, it may be that there are some within JNC and other parts of civil society who are willing to write off the entire enterprise simply because WEF is one of the founding organisations, regardless of the specific role it has in the current structure. That position generally goes along with an opposition to all fora in which commercial organisations are full participants (a familiar JNC refrain), and I think we can say that is solidly a minority position within CS groups that participate in IG processes, and likely to stay that way. >> >> There are also those, primarily within the technical community, who feel that having transnational fora that can make meaningful decisions on anything related to the Internet, outside the narrow technical remit of the I* agencies, is a problem. There is perhaps a lingering sense of this within the ISOC decision (though there is more to it than that). But I get the feeling that the majority of us would cautiously welcome some more meaningful fora for addressing some broader IG issues, in the spirit of NetMundial. There are some who would rather than took place by an expanded role for the IGF, but I don't think there are many of us who think that is likely to happen in the near future. >> >> So, I think we are more or less left with a majority that feels that something with similar goals to the NMI would be valuable, but the current NMI as proposed has some very real problems in structure and process, especially with the significant role of the WEF. The big question is how to respond to the existence of this badly flawed initiative. >> >> So we essentially have divisions between those who feel the process and structure so far is so badly flawed that the best response is to ignore it and hope that a better initiative can be constructed after its failure, those who feel that with sufficient negotiation and pressure it can be wrenched into more acceptable shape, and those who feel that despite its significant flaws it might turn out to be a significant venue. I think these divisions are largely tactical (there are no insurmountable differences regarding the potential value of a forum with general aims similar to NMI, or on the significant flaws of this proposal to fill that space). Most of the arguments turn on whether or not it will turn out to be a significant forum. If it will be significant with or without CS, the argument is we should be involved. If ISOC withdrawal has already killed it, we should not bother participating. If CS involvement is the deciding factor on whether or not it will be acceptable, then how should we use that potential leverage, or should we simply drop it on principle. >> >> My opinion is that ISOC withdrawing has already holed it below the waterline, and it will not be a significant initiative unless it can drag the tech community back in to refloat it, and doing so would probably require the significant changes to the structure and process that CS wants. So, I'm probably in favour of no participation at this point, and maybe agreeing to participate at a later date if the structure is changed. But I regard that as a tactical decision at this point, and I certainly don't think anyone who does want to participate is letting down CS as a whole by choosing to do so. >> >> David >> >> >> On 21 Nov 2014, at 4:43 am, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I asked in an earlier post whether >>> civil society has been manoeuvred into a position in which choosing >>> not to be involved becomes not really an option? >>> As civil society we have a very broad range of perspective and >>> therefore it is much more difficult for this group to act together >>> rapidly, as ISOC has done, when the nature of the issue itself is >>> still doubtful. Other people have already reminded us of the >>> hesitation before the NETmundial meeting in April, and the >>> enthusiasm (in general) which greeted the outcomes of that meeting, >>> although there are still some reservations - Renata just shared hers. >>> My sympathies lean towards a reluctance to provide legitimacy, but >>> my common sense suggests the following: >>> >>> >>> As far as I can see the Netmundial >>> Initiative will continue with or without us. >>> >>> Civil Society is split now (and >>> has been split for some time) so that any attempt at a boycott is >>> likely to fail because it will be incomplete. >>> >>> The invitation to join can be >>> presented in such a way as to provide legitimacy even if not all of >>> civil society agrees to accept. (This is what I meant by >>> "manoeuvred" above.) >>> >>> We have not been given a clear >>> picture of what the initiative is - it may prove to be something >>> that meets our approval - or not. >>> >>> It is very important that any >>> civil society representatives who join that committee should be >>> people who go with an open mind. Those who disapprove are absenting >>> themselves anyway; it would be better to have representatives who >>> are initially neutral but open to be persuaded one way or the other. >>> >>> Finally, should the initiative >>> prove to be unacceptable, a well publicised walkout by the 5 civil >>> society representatives (who are also representing "the world") >>> would be much easier to arrange and much more effective than a >>> partial boycott before the meeting takes place. >>> >>> The discussion at the Geneva Internet Conference about the >>> Netmundial Initiative yesterday morning (Wednesday 19th) was useful. >>> On Tuesday during "Same issues, different perspectives: overcoming >>> policy silos in privacy and data protection", one of the afternoon >>> sessions, Brian Trammell, Senior Researcher, Communication Systems >>> Group, ETH Zurich, presenting the "technical" perspective, said of >>> the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) that members are >>> volunteers who "participate as individuals". >>> This is also true of the Internet Governance Caucus, and essentially >>> of civil society as a whole. One of the freedoms that our society >>> tries to provide is the right of the individual to follow the >>> dictates of her/his own conscience. My own choice is a pragmatic >>> one. It should in no way be seen as a criticism of anyone else's >>> point of view or decision. >>> Deirdre >>> >>> On 20 November 2014 11:41, Mawaki Chango < kichango at gmail.com> wrote: >>> Fellas, >>> Some of us have raised questions about the views of the Brazilian party (CGI.br) in this NMI business. But I know they are in a delicate position and may be concerned to appear as judge and jury if they come out strong for a position (and we can expect which that position would be.) Flavio is not on the IGC list but he granted me the permission to forward to this list this message of his below, originally posted to the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN's GNSO. >>> Best, >>> >>> Mawaki >>> >>> >>> Fw: [NCSG-Discuss] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET >>> MUNDIAL INITIATIVE >>> >>> On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:55 AM, Flávio Rech Wagner < flavio at INF.UFRGS.BR> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Robin >>> >>> I have been informed that the "transitional council" of the NMI - NETmundial Initiative (which contains representatives from ICANN,CGI.br and WEF and is provisory, until the 25 names of the permanent council have been defined) is having an intense dialogue with CSCG (the Civil Society Coordination Group) and, together, they shall come to a solution for appointing names to the council by consensus and fully respecting nominations from Civil Society. There is no intention whatsoever from the transitional council to indicate names in a closed, top-down manner and without full endorsement from CSCG. >>> >>> The transitional council also expects to achieve similar solutions for appointing names that will represent other stakeholder groups. >>> >>> Please notice that CGI.br (the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee), which is one of the entities proposing the NMI, would never agree with top-down, closed decisions that would strongly undermine CGI's legitimacy as a true bottom-up, multistakeholder body. CGI.br is completely committed to preserve the NETmundial principles in the implementation of the NMI. >>> >>> Please remember also that, when NETmundial was proposed by the end of 2013, all of us in the global Internet Governance (IG) community, because of lack of information, were puzzled about its organization and possible success and outcomes. But the global community faced the challenge and transformed a vague idea into a successful event, with a true multistakeholder organization, with very open and transparent processes, and with a final document that was achieved by rough consensus and approved governance principles that were praised by most of the stakeholders (including human rights and other principles that are extremely valued by Civil Society). >>> >>> So let's try to transform NMI, which is still also a vague idea, into something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG and that fully respects the principles enshrined in the NETmundial declaration. >>> >>> Flávio >>> (NCUC member and member of the Board of CGI.br) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> >>> To 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 21 12:22:00 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 09:22:00 -0800 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <90B1BAF8-41AC-4305-AF25-3EDA377080A9@difference.com.au> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <149c7681318.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <90B1BAF8-41AC-4305-AF25-3EDA377080A9@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <021f01d005af$a95f86d0$fc1e9470$@gmail.com> As anyone with any familiarity with Civil Society will know, the term Neo-liberal is a very common term of art in Civil Society analyses particularly outside of the 5 Eyes consortia countries. The current discussions concerning neo-liberalism in public policy areas generally link directly back to “the Washington Consensus ” which has come to be understood as advocating “market fundamentalist” approaches to public policy and public goods for example the privatization of water supplies (often actively promoted by companies such as Nestle) which led to virtual civil war in Bolivia; the enforced privatization of health care in much of West Africa which has been directly linked to the failure to immediately apprehend and control Ebola in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone; the privatization and monetization of school systems throughout Africa which have led to steep declines in literacy levels throughout much of sub-Saharan Africa and other such “contributions" to the public good. For a more direct linkage of these discussions concerning neo-liberalism to IG see http://alainet.org/active/73028 M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of David Cake Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:21 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: Guru; Sivasubramanian M Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative On 19 Nov 2014, at 5:35 pm, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Even within civil society, include only those sections of civil society that still use jargon like neoliberal As I said on another list recently, that particular bit of jargon irritates me no end. In part because you'd hope that some of us have at least a nodding familiarity with international relations theory, given how much it relates to IG, and in IR theory the term neoliberal means something quite different to its economic meaning. Yet JNC members, in particular, tend to use the term like punctuation, with no indication of any awareness of the ambiguity. Cheers David I suppose it is a mercy that 'evil capitalist running dogs' is out of fashion these days. On November 19, 2014 2:52:03 PM Sivasubramanian M wrote: Dear Guru, ​(You (Guru) said: ​ WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated work also is structuring our participation in the information society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global surveillance ​If such as strong generalization of big business is to be accepted as fair and valid, then all those who subscribe to such a generalization may have to go back to the WSIS declarations and summarily exclude Business as a Stakeholder group, and then declare that Internet Governance ought to be a process with two stakeholder groups - Government + Civil Society. No, no, on second thoughts I see your reference to Snowden and USG+, so the Civil Society could exclude Government from Internet Governance, and declare that Internet Governance must be reinvented as a single stakeholder group process, with Civil Society as the only stakeholder group. Seriously, i f WSIS had committed to build a " people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society ​", what happens to inclusiveness and development with such a position on Big Business? ​ And, why this hatred for big business? Most progress in this world has happened because of enterprise, much more because of business than because of Government. Granted, some of the information technology big businesses have worked with Governments on surveillance designs, and even there, we do not know how of much of such cooperation came out of a desire for profit and how much of it was forced by arm-twisting or by milder pressures in so many subtle and imaginative ways. Irrespective of how WEF's role has been articulated at the moment, it is a very positive development to bring in the WEF . ​ WEF participation suddenly expands business participation to a world of business outside the IT sector, so WEF's attention to IG issues might by itself act as a balancing influence within the corporate world, because many of these Big Businesses are Internet "users" themselves. ​Some of these Big Businesses are possibly charitable in unknown ways. What is needed here is strong support at the moment, and w e could ​eventually ​ work towards a greater balance across stakeholder groups.​ ​ Sivasubramanian M On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Guru wrote: Dear Mawaki I would like to cite from two sources: A. WSIS Declaration of Principles - http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html (the very first two clauses) 1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world*, *assembled in Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 2. Our challenge* is to harness the potential of information and communication technology to promote the development goals of the Millennium Declaration, namely the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; achievement of universal primary education; promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women; reduction of child mortality; improvement of maternal health; to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring environmental sustainability; and development of global partnerships for development for the attainment of a more peaceful, just and prosperous world. We also reiterate our commitment to the achievement of sustainable development and agreed development goals, as contained in the Johannesburg Declaration and Plan of Implementation and the Monterrey Consensus, and other outcomes of relevant United Nations Summits. I now will cite from the WEF site - http://www.weforum.org/our-members Begin Our Members The World Economic Forum is a membership organization. Our Members comprise 1,000 of the world’s top corporations, global enterprises usually with more than US$ 5 billion in turnover. These enterprises rank among the top companies within their industry and play a leading role in shaping the future of their industry and region. Some of our Member companies join the Forum’s Strategic and Industry Partnership communities, which are designed to deepen their engagement with the Forum’s events, project and initiatives. The Forum’s Members are at the heart of all our activities. End It is clear that WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated work also is structuring our participation in the information society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global surveillance, which helps them in their goals of political-economic domination / colonisation Participating in forums anchored in such a space will only legitimise their power. I am clear that IGC should not participate in the NMI. thanks and regards Guru Gurumurthy Kasinathan Director, IT for Change In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC www.ITforChange.Net | Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134 , 26536890 http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum On Tuesday 18 November 2014 05:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Dear All, > > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't repeat > the background details. In the middle of the night last night, before > hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing catch-up with > deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI > Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, they are > willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the NMI > Coordination Council. > > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership of CSCG > member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI process or > not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations we've been > having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and with the > membership of our respective organizations.) After this we should be > able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position about > our participation in the NMI process. > > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be brief. > State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement and, if > you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you if you > could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph (as we > just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see what I > mean.) > > Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Nov 21 12:35:25 2014 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 18:35:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <1416554639.51899.YahooMailIosMobile@web28706.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <959D9AA2-690A-4557-BEF4-302880761075@difference.com.au> Message-ID: It is interesting to reflect on that "something" indeed For now, as stated in the NMI website each member of the Coordination Council including civil society participant - "who wishes to learn more about the enemy or influence things from within" - will still have to go along these lines. I would say that I have way too much questions about each of these "DUTIES", so I would just remind that getting aboard that vessel means the following. If you understand everything that it means, let us know if this sounds like "cool" to be a member of that Coordination Council. I think the civil society participants will deserve some "return" or "payback" for all that good job (at least a blue ribbon). The responsibilities of the Coordination Council members are to: Facilitate global support for distributed Internet governance (????? I am not sure how many question marks this one deserves); Secure supporters for the NETmundial Principles developed in São Paulo; (in case these supporters are in danger due to interference by non compliant civil society activists and troublemakers : or, provide some $ to the good pupils?. Not sure here) Raise global awareness of the NETmundial Initiative; (That certainly means that each member of the CC is also part of the NMI communication team, or something close to that, on an equal footing of course with other members of the team. Members will first pass a test to see if they make a difference between the NM principles and the NM initiative - be ready on this one) Establish a framework for global engagement in the Initiative; (What is this? The rules of engagement for future members of NMI? Setting strategies to convince other to join?) Attract new ideas for Internet governance enablers and solutions; (Sounds cool isn't it!) Attract funding for Internet governance enablers and solutions; (Any relevant experience in fund raising welcome, ICANN, the WEF and CGIbr are missing some cash on this initiative it seems) Coordinate NETmundial activities to maximize the efficient use of resources and avoid duplication of efforts in the polycentric ecosystem; (Always feels good to be a coordinator, right?) Establish liaisons with other Internet governance fora. (Remember that you have to contribute to the decentralized, open, interoperable tasks of the NMI communication team) Clarification welcome, as that list of duties has put my poor head upside down. All the best to the future happy CS nominees, they merit our respect. JC Le 21 nov. 2014 à 17:52, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : > > On Nov 21, 2014, at 1:03 AM, David Cake wrote: > Absolutely. I don't think ISOC will necessarily maintain opposition to the idea of something like NMI. But will NMI itself change enough to become that something? >> >> Cheers >> >> David (FWIW, I'm a member of ISOC-AU, but just a member, I have no particular insight into their thinking) > > And anyway, ISOC chapters don't necessarily follow the party line. Global ISOC is its own peculiar thing, often quite detached from the chapters. > > -- > 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 :: > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jmalcolm at eff.org Fri Nov 21 12:47:17 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 09:47:17 -0800 Subject: [governance] JNC perspective on making Internet governance democratic (was Re: URGENT: Last call...) In-Reply-To: <20141121142258.798a81b9@quill> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <1486537673.7522.1416390999726.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f29> <4D5FE9B9-60E9-4AE4-BC19-5A72B08E78A6@orange.fr> <146A4EC5-F62D-421E-98FB-E21C3CA21380@difference.com.au> <20141121142258.798a81b9@quill> Message-ID: <546F7AA5.2050000@eff.org> On 21/11/2014 5:22 am, Norbert Bollow wrote: > JNC certainly has every intention of working hard to convince many of > those who are currently unconvinced of the importance and feasibility > of making Internet governance democratic. Greetings, Norbert Whilst such evangelical zeal is - I suppose - admirable, do you really think that is going to be productive, rather than just compounding the discord you have already caused? As you know full well, none of those whom you are addressing accept for a moment that their ideal of multi-stakeholder Internet governance is undemocratic, as JNC insists it is. Neither are they naïve babes in the wood who haven't fully thought through their positions, over in some cases a decade or longer. I can assure you that there will not be some sudden transformation, as along the road to Damascus, where the scales fall from our eyes and we convert to the JNC ideology, if only you berate us about our sins for long enough. I am not saying that there is no value in you developing a socialist critique of emerging multi-stakeholder global governance norms for which others are advocating. But recognise that your audience for that critique is always going to be limited, and you are not going to win over hearts and minds with these continued personal attacks - you are only going to continue to alienate people. The rather quite despicable slur that Michael levied against Anriette and APC about not being concerned with social justice is a paradigm example of this - I'm not claiming that it alienated Anriette and I certainly don't expect that it will silence her, but it may certainly alienate and silence others who respect her and APC's many years of selfless service. As Ian alluded to in a recent mail, what you are doing is simply driving people away, either completely out of the conversation, or at least into a stated of cowed silence where they afraid to voice their opinions. If ever you seem to have "won" the debate, it will only be because they are frightened to contribute to it for fear of retribution, or because they have moved their discussions to closed lists where you are not present (indeed this is already happening). JNC needs to have a long, hard think about whether this is what you really want. -- 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: 244 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Fri Nov 21 12:57:09 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 01:57:09 +0800 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <021f01d005af$a95f86d0$fc1e9470$@gmail.com> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <149c7681318.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <90B1BAF8-41AC-4305-AF25-3EDA377080A9@difference.com.au> <021f01d005af$a95f86d0$fc1e9470$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <803973AF-F81B-4069-83CD-60A0B20154D1@difference.com.au> On 22 Nov 2014, at 1:22 am, michael gurstein wrote: > As anyone with any familiarity with Civil Society will know, the term Neo-liberal is a very common term of art in Civil Society analyses particularly outside of the 5 Eyes consortia countries. Yes, and as anyone with any familiarity with International Relations theory will know, the term neo-liberal is a very common term of art in the entire field, meaning something somewhat different (though not 100% unrelated). But I do rather suspect that familiarity with IR theory is not common among JNC members, as I've not yet seen JNC analysis that seems particularly informed by it. > The current discussions concerning neo-liberalism in public policy areas generally link directly back to “the Washington Consensus” Yes, yes, just because the way you use the term annoys me doesn't mean I don't understand what you mean by it. > For a more direct linkage of these discussions concerning neo-liberalism to IG see http://alainet.org/active/73028 I'm tiresomely familiar with the argument, thank you, but I still don't agree with it. Do you have anything on that argument that has made it into a peer reviewed journal, BTW? It would be useful to have something to cite. Cheers David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Nov 21 13:13:46 2014 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 18:13:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <01f001d005ac$bbe05760$33a10620$@gmail.com> References: <1416554639.51899.YahooMailIosMobile@web28706.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <959D9AA2-690A-4557-BEF4-302880761075@difference.com.au> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>,<01f001d005ac$bbe05760$33a10620$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Michael, >From the quote you critique, you are therefore saying 'open source-like' and 'on-demand' are - not - good approaches? Perhaps I misunderstood. It then appears that instead you imply you prefer the current system where tax and Internet issues are discussed in OECD, and to an extent in WTO, or bilaterally and in regional trade and economic zones like the just concluded APEC sessions, with more or less biz and cs/academic input often behind closed doors, including of course from Amazon and Disney when they wish. But generally that might be under rules of confidentiality during the planning phase, so a more transparent multistakeholder effort is not welcomed by JNC. Or maybe I misunderstood again? And you are clear however that there should be no venue like NMI - might be - to broaden the discussion either to impacts on non-OECD governments, or enable other CS actor's views to be brought to the table. Such as those from Brazil and other developing/emerging market nations -citizens as individuals - who may have limited access to play in those other venues. Or maybe I misunderstood a third time. But I definitely understand how that set of views might serve - some- Canadian interests, unsure about others. Lee PS: Of course I mean no offense, only to demonstrate how easy it is to play certain rhetorical games. I'll retire now again to academic duties, having at least clarified this discussion to my satisfaction. No need to reply Michael, your points are taken and more or less understood as you see above, thanks. ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org on behalf of michael gurstein Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 12:01 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; '"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'; 'David Cake'; 'Ian Peter' Subject: RE: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative Wolfgang, I could be wrong but I read the below as referring to rather more than simply being "project oriented". Latest statement from NMI The aim is to strengthen the capacity of the multistakeholder Internet governance ecosystem to respond effectively in an open-source, on-demand manner to concrete challenges identified by individual stakeholders, whether on economic, social or security policy concerns or technical matters. https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-answers-common-questions As I said earlier I'm looking forward to the multistakeholderization of global tax policy with Google and Amazon as full partners and of copyright policy with Disney as equal footing stakeholders (as at Netmundial for example). M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 4:29 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Cake; Ian Peter Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: AW: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative NMI is - in my eyes - not predetermined. It is an Invitation to be creative. It will become what the people make out of it. It will be project oriented. So when we talk about how VCS could become involved and what the conditions for our cooperation would be we should also talk about what projects we should propose. I would prioritize projects to support education and training, to enhance access in underserved regions and to look for innovative mechanisms to have human rights assessment procedures both for national and international Internet related public policy making in existing organizations. Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von David Cake Gesendet: Fr 21.11.2014 10:03 An: Ian Peter Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative On 21 Nov 2014, at 4:53 pm, Ian Peter > wrote: > Hi David, > > Bear in mind that (as I understand it) ISOC has yet to fully consult its chapters and members about this decision so I wouldn't be too surprised to see some adjustments to their current position. That is true - but I understand this was a decision of the Board of Trustees, which is a fairly large group that includes members from a multiple chapters, so I think it relatively unlikely that broader consultation will change it too much. I think if their position changes, it would be more likely to be due to changes to the NMI proposal. > As Jeanette pointed out, ISOC was originally opposed to the formation of IGF, a position they reversed fairly quickly when IGF got under way. It's also not many years ago that ISOC was arguing for NTIA to continue its oversight role of the root zone - a position that began to evolve after member chapters became involved in reversing that policy decision. Absolutely. I don't think ISOC will necessarily maintain opposition to the idea of something like NMI. But will NMI itself change enough to become that something? Cheers David (FWIW, I'm a member of ISOC-AU, but just a member, I have no particular insight into their thinking) > > So things do change. > > Ian Peter > > From: David Cake > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 6:39 PM > To: Arsene TUNGALI > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; williams.deirdre at gmail.com > Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS > participation in NETmundial Initiative > > I think if ISOC continues to not be involved, and there is no significant buy in from other I* orgs other than ICANN, then the NMI will not end up being a very significant process anyway. > > But I certainly think that if the CSCG, or individual groups within it, continue to negotiate, and particularly if there is a significant change that responds to ISOC concerns, then that is no problem. If CS members wish to participate in the process in the hope that happens, I have no problem with that. > > That said, I'd be surprised if ISOC change their position without huge changes to the process (possibly equivalent to more or less starting again). > > I personally doubt JNC will rejoin the process unless WEF is effectively removed from any leadership role, but I'm sure they are more than capable of explaining their position themselves. > > David > > > On 21 Nov 2014, at 3:23 pm, Arsene TUNGALI > wrote: > >> >> David, you are right in many of the points raised but... >> >> Not participating, in my opinion, will result in no change of structure or so within NMI. However, being part of it will certainly shape it. We need people who will challenge them to sit on the same table for face-to-face debates. >> >> From my understanding, ISOC, JNC and other groups who are againts will be happy to join if there is some major changes happening. But trust me, no change will happen if we remain on arguing on mailing lists rather than on that table. >> >> I encourage those who are willing to join to go and help change the >> course of things within NMI so the other CS bodies can join as well:) >> >> ------------------ >> Arsene Tungali, >> Executive Director, Rudi International www.rudiinternational.org >> >> Founder, Mabingwa Forum >> www.mabingwa-forum.com >> Phone:+243993810967 >> >> ICANN Fellow | ISOC Member | Child Online Protection Advocate | Youth Leader | Internet Governance. >> Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) >> >> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone >> >> At 21 nov. 2014 09:10:39, David Cake<'dave at difference.com.au'> wrote:I think Deirdre speaks a fair bit of sense here. >> >> I don't think the two sides of this debate are as far apart some would suggest. >> >> The majority of CS certainly seemed to feel that the initial proposal for structure presented by the NMI founding organisations was very badly flawed. >> >> Now, it may be that there are some within JNC and other parts of civil society who are willing to write off the entire enterprise simply because WEF is one of the founding organisations, regardless of the specific role it has in the current structure. That position generally goes along with an opposition to all fora in which commercial organisations are full participants (a familiar JNC refrain), and I think we can say that is solidly a minority position within CS groups that participate in IG processes, and likely to stay that way. >> >> There are also those, primarily within the technical community, who feel that having transnational fora that can make meaningful decisions on anything related to the Internet, outside the narrow technical remit of the I* agencies, is a problem. There is perhaps a lingering sense of this within the ISOC decision (though there is more to it than that). But I get the feeling that the majority of us would cautiously welcome some more meaningful fora for addressing some broader IG issues, in the spirit of NetMundial. There are some who would rather than took place by an expanded role for the IGF, but I don't think there are many of us who think that is likely to happen in the near future. >> >> So, I think we are more or less left with a majority that feels that something with similar goals to the NMI would be valuable, but the current NMI as proposed has some very real problems in structure and process, especially with the significant role of the WEF. The big question is how to respond to the existence of this badly flawed initiative. >> >> So we essentially have divisions between those who feel the process and structure so far is so badly flawed that the best response is to ignore it and hope that a better initiative can be constructed after its failure, those who feel that with sufficient negotiation and pressure it can be wrenched into more acceptable shape, and those who feel that despite its significant flaws it might turn out to be a significant venue. I think these divisions are largely tactical (there are no insurmountable differences regarding the potential value of a forum with general aims similar to NMI, or on the significant flaws of this proposal to fill that space). Most of the arguments turn on whether or not it will turn out to be a significant forum. If it will be significant with or without CS, the argument is we should be involved. If ISOC withdrawal has already killed it, we should not bother participating. If CS involvement is the deciding factor on whether or not it will be acceptable, then how should we use that potential leverage, or should we simply drop it on principle. >> >> My opinion is that ISOC withdrawing has already holed it below the waterline, and it will not be a significant initiative unless it can drag the tech community back in to refloat it, and doing so would probably require the significant changes to the structure and process that CS wants. So, I'm probably in favour of no participation at this point, and maybe agreeing to participate at a later date if the structure is changed. But I regard that as a tactical decision at this point, and I certainly don't think anyone who does want to participate is letting down CS as a whole by choosing to do so. >> >> David >> >> >> On 21 Nov 2014, at 4:43 am, Deirdre Williams > wrote: >> >>> I asked in an earlier post whether >>> civil society has been manoeuvred into a position in which choosing >>> not to be involved becomes not really an option? >>> As civil society we have a very broad range of perspective and >>> therefore it is much more difficult for this group to act together >>> rapidly, as ISOC has done, when the nature of the issue itself is >>> still doubtful. Other people have already reminded us of the >>> hesitation before the NETmundial meeting in April, and the >>> enthusiasm (in general) which greeted the outcomes of that meeting, >>> although there are still some reservations - Renata just shared hers. >>> My sympathies lean towards a reluctance to provide legitimacy, but >>> my common sense suggests the following: >>> >>> >>> As far as I can see the Netmundial >>> Initiative will continue with or without us. >>> >>> Civil Society is split now (and >>> has been split for some time) so that any attempt at a boycott is >>> likely to fail because it will be incomplete. >>> >>> The invitation to join can be >>> presented in such a way as to provide legitimacy even if not all of >>> civil society agrees to accept. (This is what I meant by >>> "manoeuvred" above.) >>> >>> We have not been given a clear >>> picture of what the initiative is - it may prove to be something >>> that meets our approval - or not. >>> >>> It is very important that any >>> civil society representatives who join that committee should be >>> people who go with an open mind. Those who disapprove are absenting >>> themselves anyway; it would be better to have representatives who >>> are initially neutral but open to be persuaded one way or the other. >>> >>> Finally, should the initiative >>> prove to be unacceptable, a well publicised walkout by the 5 civil >>> society representatives (who are also representing "the world") >>> would be much easier to arrange and much more effective than a >>> partial boycott before the meeting takes place. >>> >>> The discussion at the Geneva Internet Conference about the >>> Netmundial Initiative yesterday morning (Wednesday 19th) was useful. >>> On Tuesday during "Same issues, different perspectives: overcoming >>> policy silos in privacy and data protection", one of the afternoon >>> sessions, Brian Trammell, Senior Researcher, Communication Systems >>> Group, ETH Zurich, presenting the "technical" perspective, said of >>> the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) that members are >>> volunteers who "participate as individuals". >>> This is also true of the Internet Governance Caucus, and essentially >>> of civil society as a whole. One of the freedoms that our society >>> tries to provide is the right of the individual to follow the >>> dictates of her/his own conscience. My own choice is a pragmatic >>> one. It should in no way be seen as a criticism of anyone else's >>> point of view or decision. >>> Deirdre >>> >>> On 20 November 2014 11:41, Mawaki Chango > wrote: >>> Fellas, >>> Some of us have raised questions about the views of the Brazilian party (CGI.br) in this NMI business. But I know they are in a delicate position and may be concerned to appear as judge and jury if they come out strong for a position (and we can expect which that position would be.) Flavio is not on the IGC list but he granted me the permission to forward to this list this message of his below, originally posted to the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN's GNSO. >>> Best, >>> >>> Mawaki >>> >>> >>> Fw: [NCSG-Discuss] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET >>> MUNDIAL INITIATIVE >>> >>> On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:55 AM, Flávio Rech Wagner > wrote: >>> >>> >>> Robin >>> >>> I have been informed that the "transitional council" of the NMI - NETmundial Initiative (which contains representatives from ICANN,CGI.br and WEF and is provisory, until the 25 names of the permanent council have been defined) is having an intense dialogue with CSCG (the Civil Society Coordination Group) and, together, they shall come to a solution for appointing names to the council by consensus and fully respecting nominations from Civil Society. There is no intention whatsoever from the transitional council to indicate names in a closed, top-down manner and without full endorsement from CSCG. >>> >>> The transitional council also expects to achieve similar solutions for appointing names that will represent other stakeholder groups. >>> >>> Please notice that CGI.br (the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee), which is one of the entities proposing the NMI, would never agree with top-down, closed decisions that would strongly undermine CGI's legitimacy as a true bottom-up, multistakeholder body. CGI.br is completely committed to preserve the NETmundial principles in the implementation of the NMI. >>> >>> Please remember also that, when NETmundial was proposed by the end of 2013, all of us in the global Internet Governance (IG) community, because of lack of information, were puzzled about its organization and possible success and outcomes. But the global community faced the challenge and transformed a vague idea into a successful event, with a true multistakeholder organization, with very open and transparent processes, and with a final document that was achieved by rough consensus and approved governance principles that were praised by most of the stakeholders (including human rights and other principles that are extremely valued by Civil Society). >>> >>> So let's try to transform NMI, which is still also a vague idea, into something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG and that fully respects the principles enshrined in the NETmundial declaration. >>> >>> Flávio >>> (NCUC member and member of the Board of CGI.br) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> >>> To 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From caribe at entropia.blog.br Fri Nov 21 13:14:36 2014 From: caribe at entropia.blog.br (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Carlos_Rebello_Carib=E9?=) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 16:14:36 -0200 Subject: [governance] Civil society participation in NMI Coordination committee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dears. NMI published this Wednesday one text answering a few questions. https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-answers-common-questions Em 20/11/2014, às 18:31, Milton L Mueller escreveu: > IGP has just published a blog post on the topic referenced above (NMI) > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/11/20/nyet-mundial-taming-the-ambitions-of-the-weficanncgi-alliance/ > > Milton L. Mueller > Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- João Carlos R. Caribé Consultor Skype joaocaribe (021) 9 8761 1967 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 21 13:18:51 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:18:51 -0800 Subject: [governance] JNC perspective on making Internet governance democratic (was Re: URGENT: Last call...) In-Reply-To: <546F7AA5.2050000@eff.org> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <1486537673.7522.1416390999726.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f29> <4D5FE9B9-60E9-4AE4-BC19-5A72B08E78A6@orange.fr> <146A4EC5-F62D-421E-98FB-E21C3CA21380@difference.com.au> <20141121142258.798a81b9@quill> <546F7AA5.2050000@eff.org> Message-ID: <02d501d005b7$9a70c460$cf524d20$@gmail.com> Hmmm... Speaking of despicable personal attacks... My point to Anriette (and everyone) is that there is a fundamental contradiction between an alignment with the WEF which is well known as a central facilitator for the 1% as for example, through participation/legitimation of the NMI and the pursuit of social justice. I fully recognize and have had long experience and admiration from a community informatics perspective with the social justice roots of APC hence my questioning and disappointment at seeing however conflicted, the pro NMI (WEF) position that was advocated by Anriette although I'm not as yet sure whether or not this is the final position from APC as a whole. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 9:47 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] JNC perspective on making Internet governance democratic (was Re: URGENT: Last call...) On 21/11/2014 5:22 am, Norbert Bollow wrote: > JNC certainly has every intention of working hard to convince many of > those who are currently unconvinced of the importance and feasibility > of making Internet governance democratic. Greetings, Norbert Whilst such evangelical zeal is - I suppose - admirable, do you really think that is going to be productive, rather than just compounding the discord you have already caused? As you know full well, none of those whom you are addressing accept for a moment that their ideal of multi-stakeholder Internet governance is undemocratic, as JNC insists it is. Neither are they naïve babes in the wood who haven't fully thought through their positions, over in some cases a decade or longer. I can assure you that there will not be some sudden transformation, as along the road to Damascus, where the scales fall from our eyes and we convert to the JNC ideology, if only you berate us about our sins for long enough. I am not saying that there is no value in you developing a socialist critique of emerging multi-stakeholder global governance norms for which others are advocating. But recognise that your audience for that critique is always going to be limited, and you are not going to win over hearts and minds with these continued personal attacks - you are only going to continue to alienate people. The rather quite despicable slur that Michael levied against Anriette and APC about not being concerned with social justice is a paradigm example of this - I'm not claiming that it alienated Anriette and I certainly don't expect that it will silence her, but it may certainly alienate and silence others who respect her and APC's many years of selfless service. As Ian alluded to in a recent mail, what you are doing is simply driving people away, either completely out of the conversation, or at least into a stated of cowed silence where they afraid to voice their opinions. If ever you seem to have "won" the debate, it will only be because they are frightened to contribute to it for fear of retribution, or because they have moved their discussions to closed lists where you are not present (indeed this is already happening). JNC needs to have a long, hard think about whether this is what you really want. -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 21 14:17:08 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 11:17:08 -0800 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <1416554639.51899.YahooMailIosMobile@web28706.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <959D9AA2-690A-4557-BEF4-302880761075@difference.com.au> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>,<01f001d005ac$bbe05760$33a10620$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <030201d005bf$bf687210$3e395630$@gmail.com> Lee, How to reply to a rather convoluted argument where I’m invoked not to reply I think a discussion on how to engage multiple voices in discussion on (global) public policy issues is a subject of very considerable concern and interest. And something that I have argued for and even begun some more academic research and engagement on. However, “legitimizing” i.e. letting the nose of the corporate camel into the global governance tent is to me not the place to begin. Certainly there is a role for corporate involvement (and engagement) in the lead up to global governance decisions/decision making but precisely how that is done and under what conditions in an overall framework of democratic governance is something which needs to be very carefully worked out and not blundered into because it i.e. the NMI happens to be a first somewhat glittering trinket put on offer. (And no offense taken, although I’m having doubts on how specifically “Canadian” interests might be advanced either by my intervention or even your interpretation of my intervention :0 M From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 10:14 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; '"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'; 'David Cake'; 'Ian Peter'; michael gurstein Subject: RE: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative Michael, >From the quote you critique, you are therefore saying 'open source-like' and 'on-demand' are - not - good approaches? Perhaps I misunderstood. It then appears that instead you imply you prefer the current system where tax and Internet issues are discussed in OECD, and to an extent in WTO, or bilaterally and in regional trade and economic zones like the just concluded APEC sessions, with more or less biz and cs/academic input often behind closed doors, including of course from Amazon and Disney when they wish. But generally that might be under rules of confidentiality during the planning phase, so a more transparent multistakeholder effort is not welcomed by JNC. Or maybe I misunderstood again? And you are clear however that there should be no venue like NMI - might be - to broaden the discussion either to impacts on non-OECD governments, or enable other CS actor's views to be brought to the table. Such as those from Brazil and other developing/emerging market nations -citizens as individuals - who may have limited access to play in those other venues. Or maybe I misunderstood a third time. But I definitely understand how that set of views might serve - some- Canadian interests, unsure about others. Lee PS: Of course I mean no offense, only to demonstrate how easy it is to play certain rhetorical games. I'll retire now again to academic duties, having at least clarified this discussion to my satisfaction. No need to reply Michael, your points are taken and more or less understood as you see above, thanks. _____ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org on behalf of michael gurstein Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 12:01 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; '"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'; 'David Cake'; 'Ian Peter' Subject: RE: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative Wolfgang, I could be wrong but I read the below as referring to rather more than simply being "project oriented". Latest statement from NMI The aim is to strengthen the capacity of the multistakeholder Internet governance ecosystem to respond effectively in an open-source, on-demand manner to concrete challenges identified by individual stakeholders, whether on economic, social or security policy concerns or technical matters. https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-answers-co mmon-questions As I said earlier I'm looking forward to the multistakeholderization of global tax policy with Google and Amazon as full partners and of copyright policy with Disney as equal footing stakeholders (as at Netmundial for example). M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 4:29 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Cake; Ian Peter Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: AW: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative NMI is - in my eyes - not predetermined. It is an Invitation to be creative. It will become what the people make out of it. It will be project oriented. So when we talk about how VCS could become involved and what the conditions for our cooperation would be we should also talk about what projects we should propose. I would prioritize projects to support education and training, to enhance access in underserved regions and to look for innovative mechanisms to have human rights assessment procedures both for national and international Internet related public policy making in existing organizations. Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von David Cake Gesendet: Fr 21.11.2014 10:03 An: Ian Peter Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative On 21 Nov 2014, at 4:53 pm, Ian Peter < ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote: > Hi David, > > Bear in mind that (as I understand it) ISOC has yet to fully consult its chapters and members about this decision so I wouldn't be too surprised to see some adjustments to their current position. That is true - but I understand this was a decision of the Board of Trustees, which is a fairly large group that includes members from a multiple chapters, so I think it relatively unlikely that broader consultation will change it too much. I think if their position changes, it would be more likely to be due to changes to the NMI proposal. > As Jeanette pointed out, ISOC was originally opposed to the formation of IGF, a position they reversed fairly quickly when IGF got under way. It's also not many years ago that ISOC was arguing for NTIA to continue its oversight role of the root zone - a position that began to evolve after member chapters became involved in reversing that policy decision. Absolutely. I don't think ISOC will necessarily maintain opposition to the idea of something like NMI. But will NMI itself change enough to become that something? Cheers David (FWIW, I'm a member of ISOC-AU, but just a member, I have no particular insight into their thinking) > > So things do change. > > Ian Peter > > From: David Cake > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 6:39 PM > To: Arsene TUNGALI > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; williams.deirdre at gmail.com > Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS > participation in NETmundial Initiative > > I think if ISOC continues to not be involved, and there is no significant buy in from other I* orgs other than ICANN, then the NMI will not end up being a very significant process anyway. > > But I certainly think that if the CSCG, or individual groups within it, continue to negotiate, and particularly if there is a significant change that responds to ISOC concerns, then that is no problem. If CS members wish to participate in the process in the hope that happens, I have no problem with that. > > That said, I'd be surprised if ISOC change their position without huge changes to the process (possibly equivalent to more or less starting again). > > I personally doubt JNC will rejoin the process unless WEF is effectively removed from any leadership role, but I'm sure they are more than capable of explaining their position themselves. > > David > > > On 21 Nov 2014, at 3:23 pm, Arsene TUNGALI < arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr> wrote: > >> >> David, you are right in many of the points raised but... >> >> Not participating, in my opinion, will result in no change of structure or so within NMI. However, being part of it will certainly shape it. We need people who will challenge them to sit on the same table for face-to-face debates. >> >> From my understanding, ISOC, JNC and other groups who are againts will be happy to join if there is some major changes happening. But trust me, no change will happen if we remain on arguing on mailing lists rather than on that table. >> >> I encourage those who are willing to join to go and help change the >> course of things within NMI so the other CS bodies can join as well:) >> >> ------------------ >> Arsene Tungali, >> Executive Director, Rudi International www.rudiinternational.org >> >> Founder, Mabingwa Forum >> www.mabingwa-forum.com >> Phone:+243993810967 >> >> ICANN Fellow | ISOC Member | Child Online Protection Advocate | Youth Leader | Internet Governance. >> Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) >> >> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone >> >> At 21 nov. 2014 09:10:39, David Cake<'dave at difference.com.au'> wrote:I think Deirdre speaks a fair bit of sense here. >> >> I don't think the two sides of this debate are as far apart some would suggest. >> >> The majority of CS certainly seemed to feel that the initial proposal for structure presented by the NMI founding organisations was very badly flawed. >> >> Now, it may be that there are some within JNC and other parts of civil society who are willing to write off the entire enterprise simply because WEF is one of the founding organisations, regardless of the specific role it has in the current structure. That position generally goes along with an opposition to all fora in which commercial organisations are full participants (a familiar JNC refrain), and I think we can say that is solidly a minority position within CS groups that participate in IG processes, and likely to stay that way. >> >> There are also those, primarily within the technical community, who feel that having transnational fora that can make meaningful decisions on anything related to the Internet, outside the narrow technical remit of the I* agencies, is a problem. There is perhaps a lingering sense of this within the ISOC decision (though there is more to it than that). But I get the feeling that the majority of us would cautiously welcome some more meaningful fora for addressing some broader IG issues, in the spirit of NetMundial. There are some who would rather than took place by an expanded role for the IGF, but I don't think there are many of us who think that is likely to happen in the near future. >> >> So, I think we are more or less left with a majority that feels that something with similar goals to the NMI would be valuable, but the current NMI as proposed has some very real problems in structure and process, especially with the significant role of the WEF. The big question is how to respond to the existence of this badly flawed initiative. >> >> So we essentially have divisions between those who feel the process and structure so far is so badly flawed that the best response is to ignore it and hope that a better initiative can be constructed after its failure, those who feel that with sufficient negotiation and pressure it can be wrenched into more acceptable shape, and those who feel that despite its significant flaws it might turn out to be a significant venue. I think these divisions are largely tactical (there are no insurmountable differences regarding the potential value of a forum with general aims similar to NMI, or on the significant flaws of this proposal to fill that space). Most of the arguments turn on whether or not it will turn out to be a significant forum. If it will be significant with or without CS, the argument is we should be involved. If ISOC withdrawal has already killed it, we should not bother participating. If CS involvement is the deciding factor on whether or not it will be acceptable, then how should we use that potential leverage, or should we simply drop it on principle. >> >> My opinion is that ISOC withdrawing has already holed it below the waterline, and it will not be a significant initiative unless it can drag the tech community back in to refloat it, and doing so would probably require the significant changes to the structure and process that CS wants. So, I'm probably in favour of no participation at this point, and maybe agreeing to participate at a later date if the structure is changed. But I regard that as a tactical decision at this point, and I certainly don't think anyone who does want to participate is letting down CS as a whole by choosing to do so. >> >> David >> >> >> On 21 Nov 2014, at 4:43 am, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I asked in an earlier post whether >>> civil society has been manoeuvred into a position in which choosing >>> not to be involved becomes not really an option? >>> As civil society we have a very broad range of perspective and >>> therefore it is much more difficult for this group to act together >>> rapidly, as ISOC has done, when the nature of the issue itself is >>> still doubtful. Other people have already reminded us of the >>> hesitation before the NETmundial meeting in April, and the >>> enthusiasm (in general) which greeted the outcomes of that meeting, >>> although there are still some reservations - Renata just shared hers. >>> My sympathies lean towards a reluctance to provide legitimacy, but >>> my common sense suggests the following: >>> >>> >>> As far as I can see the Netmundial >>> Initiative will continue with or without us. >>> >>> Civil Society is split now (and >>> has been split for some time) so that any attempt at a boycott is >>> likely to fail because it will be incomplete. >>> >>> The invitation to join can be >>> presented in such a way as to provide legitimacy even if not all of >>> civil society agrees to accept. (This is what I meant by >>> "manoeuvred" above.) >>> >>> We have not been given a clear >>> picture of what the initiative is - it may prove to be something >>> that meets our approval - or not. >>> >>> It is very important that any >>> civil society representatives who join that committee should be >>> people who go with an open mind. Those who disapprove are absenting >>> themselves anyway; it would be better to have representatives who >>> are initially neutral but open to be persuaded one way or the other. >>> >>> Finally, should the initiative >>> prove to be unacceptable, a well publicised walkout by the 5 civil >>> society representatives (who are also representing "the world") >>> would be much easier to arrange and much more effective than a >>> partial boycott before the meeting takes place. >>> >>> The discussion at the Geneva Internet Conference about the >>> Netmundial Initiative yesterday morning (Wednesday 19th) was useful. >>> On Tuesday during "Same issues, different perspectives: overcoming >>> policy silos in privacy and data protection", one of the afternoon >>> sessions, Brian Trammell, Senior Researcher, Communication Systems >>> Group, ETH Zurich, presenting the "technical" perspective, said of >>> the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) that members are >>> volunteers who "participate as individuals". >>> This is also true of the Internet Governance Caucus, and essentially >>> of civil society as a whole. One of the freedoms that our society >>> tries to provide is the right of the individual to follow the >>> dictates of her/his own conscience. My own choice is a pragmatic >>> one. It should in no way be seen as a criticism of anyone else's >>> point of view or decision. >>> Deirdre >>> >>> On 20 November 2014 11:41, Mawaki Chango < kichango at gmail.com> wrote: >>> Fellas, >>> Some of us have raised questions about the views of the Brazilian party (CGI.br) in this NMI business. But I know they are in a delicate position and may be concerned to appear as judge and jury if they come out strong for a position (and we can expect which that position would be.) Flavio is not on the IGC list but he granted me the permission to forward to this list this message of his below, originally posted to the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN's GNSO. >>> Best, >>> >>> Mawaki >>> >>> >>> Fw: [NCSG-Discuss] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET >>> MUNDIAL INITIATIVE >>> >>> On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:55 AM, Flávio Rech Wagner < flavio at INF.UFRGS.BR> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Robin >>> >>> I have been informed that the "transitional council" of the NMI - NETmundial Initiative (which contains representatives from ICANN,CGI.br and WEF and is provisory, until the 25 names of the permanent council have been defined) is having an intense dialogue with CSCG (the Civil Society Coordination Group) and, together, they shall come to a solution for appointing names to the council by consensus and fully respecting nominations from Civil Society. There is no intention whatsoever from the transitional council to indicate names in a closed, top-down manner and without full endorsement from CSCG. >>> >>> The transitional council also expects to achieve similar solutions for appointing names that will represent other stakeholder groups. >>> >>> Please notice that CGI.br (the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee), which is one of the entities proposing the NMI, would never agree with top-down, closed decisions that would strongly undermine CGI's legitimacy as a true bottom-up, multistakeholder body. CGI.br is completely committed to preserve the NETmundial principles in the implementation of the NMI. >>> >>> Please remember also that, when NETmundial was proposed by the end of 2013, all of us in the global Internet Governance (IG) community, because of lack of information, were puzzled about its organization and possible success and outcomes. But the global community faced the challenge and transformed a vague idea into a successful event, with a true multistakeholder organization, with very open and transparent processes, and with a final document that was achieved by rough consensus and approved governance principles that were praised by most of the stakeholders (including human rights and other principles that are extremely valued by Civil Society). >>> >>> So let's try to transform NMI, which is still also a vague idea, into something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG and that fully respects the principles enshrined in the NETmundial declaration. >>> >>> Flávio >>> (NCUC member and member of the Board of CGI.br) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> >>> To 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 21 14:17:08 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 11:17:08 -0800 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <803973AF-F81B-4069-83CD-60A0B20154D1@difference.com.au> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <149c7681318.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <90B1BAF8-41AC-4305-AF25-3EDA377080A9@difference.com.au> <021f01d005af$a95f86d0$fc1e9470$@gmail.com> <803973AF-F81B-4069-83CD-60A0B20154D1@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <030701d005bf$c12a4650$437ed2f0$@gmail.com> Cool, there is a now fork in this discussion!. All those who think we are discussing somewhat abstract notions drawn from International Relations theory please follow David Cake, everyone else can stay and grind their way forward here discussing issues of concern to Civil Society. I'm guessing that the argument appearing as an Editorial in the peer reviewed Journal of Community Informatics won't count (since I edit the journal) re: your challenge concerning peer reviewed publication, but I do note via Google Scholar that the blogpost has been cited at least once in what appears to be a peer reviewed conference paper. (That isn't bad for an academic citation given that most journals etc. need a minimum of 18 months from receipt to publication and the paper only appeared about 4 months ago.) M From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 9:57 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian; Guru; Sivasubramanian M Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative On 22 Nov 2014, at 1:22 am, michael gurstein wrote: As anyone with any familiarity with Civil Society will know, the term Neo-liberal is a very common term of art in Civil Society analyses particularly outside of the 5 Eyes consortia countries. Yes, and as anyone with any familiarity with International Relations theory will know, the term neo-liberal is a very common term of art in the entire field, meaning something somewhat different (though not 100% unrelated). But I do rather suspect that familiarity with IR theory is not common among JNC members, as I've not yet seen JNC analysis that seems particularly informed by it. The current discussions concerning neo-liberalism in public policy areas generally link directly back to "the Washington Consensus" Yes, yes, just because the way you use the term annoys me doesn't mean I don't understand what you mean by it. For a more direct linkage of these discussions concerning neo-liberalism to IG see http://alainet.org/active/73028 I'm tiresomely familiar with the argument, thank you, but I still don't agree with it. Do you have anything on that argument that has made it into a peer reviewed journal, BTW? It would be useful to have something to cite. Cheers David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Fri Nov 21 14:50:20 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 03:50:20 +0800 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <030701d005bf$c12a4650$437ed2f0$@gmail.com> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <149c7681318.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <90B1BAF8-41AC-4305-AF25-3EDA377080A9@difference.com.au> <021f01d005af$a95f86d0$fc1e9470$@gmail.com> <803973AF-F81B-4069-83CD-60A0B20154D1@difference.com.au> <030701d005bf$c12a4650$437ed2f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 22 Nov 2014, at 3:17 am, michael gurstein wrote: > Cool, there is a now fork in this discussion!… > > All those who think we are discussing somewhat abstract notions drawn from International Relations theory please follow David Cake, I know you aren't discussing ideas from IR theory, Michael, but your arguments would be improved if you understood them a little. For example the standard definition of Internet Governance from WGIG derives straight from regime theory. And it might help you understand why the rest of civil society sees the role of democracy in internet governance differently (hint: when an autocratic nation casts a ballot in an international forum, democracy is not enhanced thereby). > everyone else can stay and grind their way forward here discussing issues of concern to Civil Society. Your tireless rhetoric on the issue of neo-liberal economics may not be of as much concern to broader civil society as you think, Michael. I think by this stage most of us are fairly familiar with it. > > I’m guessing that the argument appearing as an Editorial in the peer reviewed Journal of Community Informatics won’t count (since I edit the journal) It only counts as peer reviewed if it was actually peer reviewed, yes. And I was also hoping for something that had references and such as academic papers normally do. But a rant that is strategically situated next to some academic papers will have to do for now, > re: your challenge concerning peer reviewed publication, So, the answer to my question is no, then? OK. > but I do note via Google Scholar that the blogpost has been cited at least once in what appears to be a peer reviewed conference paper. (That isn’t bad for an academic citation given that most journals etc. need a minimum of 18 months from receipt to publication and the paper only appeared about 4 months ago.) Being cited in a peer reviewed conference paper is not the same as being one. I could cite the Daily Mail in a peer reviewed paper if it was relevant. But the only cite of that editorial I could find was by your JNC colleague Richard Hill in a seminar paper, not sure if that was peer reviewed. Richard must have liked it though, it was the only thing he referenced not written by himself! Cheers David > > M > > From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 9:57 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian; Guru; Sivasubramanian M > Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative > > > On 22 Nov 2014, at 1:22 am, michael gurstein wrote: > > > As anyone with any familiarity with Civil Society will know, the term Neo-liberal is a very common term of art in Civil Society analyses particularly outside of the 5 Eyes consortia countries. > > Yes, and as anyone with any familiarity with International Relations theory will know, the term neo-liberal is a very common term of art in the entire field, meaning something somewhat different (though not 100% unrelated). But I do rather suspect that familiarity with IR theory is not common among JNC members, as I've not yet seen JNC analysis that seems particularly informed by it. > > > The current discussions concerning neo-liberalism in public policy areas generally link directly back to “the Washington Consensus” > > Yes, yes, just because the way you use the term annoys me doesn't mean I don't understand what you mean by it. > > For a more direct linkage of these discussions concerning neo-liberalism to IG see http://alainet.org/active/73028 > > I'm tiresomely familiar with the argument, thank you, but I still don't agree with it. > > Do you have anything on that argument that has made it into a peer reviewed journal, BTW? It would be useful to have something to cite. > > Cheers > > David > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Fri Nov 21 15:11:00 2014 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 20:11:00 +0000 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <146A4EC5-F62D-421E-98FB-E21C3CA21380@difference.com.au> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <1486537673.7522.1416390999726.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f29> <4D5FE9B9-60E9-4AE4-BC19-5A72B08E78A6@orange.fr> <146A4EC5-F62D-421E-98FB-E21C3CA21380@difference.com.au> Message-ID: Though David Cake and I share the viewpoint that we should keep a distance from NMI I don't think his comments capture the main motivation for my point of view, so I need to elaborate a bit. I find myself opposing formal CS buy in to NMI Coordinating Committee not because I am opposed on principle to working with the commercial interests in a MS environment, but because I see no reason for civil society to bind itself to a quasi-institutionalized, legitimizing presence in an organization set up primarily by and for other stakeholders, especially when we have no idea what that organization will do. Even if NMI had made acceptable concessions to get CS to be represented on its coordinating committee, I don't think we should be on that coordinating committee, formally, qua CS. As I wrote in my blog, it is in effect an attempt to establish a kind of hegemony over global internet policy and I don't want, and don't think anyone in CS should want, that kind of hegemony, not at this time, not in this way. If you support the Netmundial principles and road map you can pursue those in any number of ways, I don't see why locking yourself into NMI advances that cause. In other words, NMI is just a pressure group, a coalition. Let any CS individual or CS organizations who feels comfortable coalescing with those bedfellows join it, just as they might join Web We Want or GNI, but let's not feed the delusion that this is the only place to do internet governance. If at some point in the future NMI proposes something concrete that we can support - and by that I refer to _substantive policy_, not _process_, then we can always join in with them to help promote and advance that policy or activity. I want to know what their priorities are and what policies they are proposing in a very specific way before I throw in my lot with them. The mere fact that they are MS does not by itself win my support. I see no reason to tell them in advance that we will always support or be a part of whatever NMI does. --MM From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of David Cake Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 2:11 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative I think Deirdre speaks a fair bit of sense here. I don't think the two sides of this debate are as far apart some would suggest. The majority of CS certainly seemed to feel that the initial proposal for structure presented by the NMI founding organisations was very badly flawed. Now, it may be that there are some within JNC and other parts of civil society who are willing to write off the entire enterprise simply because WEF is one of the founding organisations, regardless of the specific role it has in the current structure. That position generally goes along with an opposition to all fora in which commercial organisations are full participants (a familiar JNC refrain), and I think we can say that is solidly a minority position within CS groups that participate in IG processes, and likely to stay that way. There are also those, primarily within the technical community, who feel that having transnational fora that can make meaningful decisions on anything related to the Internet, outside the narrow technical remit of the I* agencies, is a problem. There is perhaps a lingering sense of this within the ISOC decision (though there is more to it than that). But I get the feeling that the majority of us would cautiously welcome some more meaningful fora for addressing some broader IG issues, in the spirit of NetMundial. There are some who would rather than took place by an expanded role for the IGF, but I don't think there are many of us who think that is likely to happen in the near future. So, I think we are more or less left with a majority that feels that something with similar goals to the NMI would be valuable, but the current NMI as proposed has some very real problems in structure and process, especially with the significant role of the WEF. The big question is how to respond to the existence of this badly flawed initiative. So we essentially have divisions between those who feel the process and structure so far is so badly flawed that the best response is to ignore it and hope that a better initiative can be constructed after its failure, those who feel that with sufficient negotiation and pressure it can be wrenched into more acceptable shape, and those who feel that despite its significant flaws it might turn out to be a significant venue. I think these divisions are largely tactical (there are no insurmountable differences regarding the potential value of a forum with general aims similar to NMI, or on the significant flaws of this proposal to fill that space). Most of the arguments turn on whether or not it will turn out to be a significant forum. If it will be significant with or without CS, the argument is we should be involved. If ISOC withdrawal has already killed it, we should not bother participating. If CS involvement is the deciding factor on whether or not it will be acceptable, then how should we use that potential leverage, or should we simply drop it on principle. My opinion is that ISOC withdrawing has already holed it below the waterline, and it will not be a significant initiative unless it can drag the tech community back in to refloat it, and doing so would probably require the significant changes to the structure and process that CS wants. So, I'm probably in favour of no participation at this point, and maybe agreeing to participate at a later date if the structure is changed. But I regard that as a tactical decision at this point, and I certainly don't think anyone who does want to participate is letting down CS as a whole by choosing to do so. David On 21 Nov 2014, at 4:43 am, Deirdre Williams > wrote: I asked in an earlier post whether civil society has been manoeuvred into a position in which choosing not to be involved becomes not really an option? As civil society we have a very broad range of perspective and therefore it is much more difficult for this group to act together rapidly, as ISOC has done, when the nature of the issue itself is still doubtful. Other people have already reminded us of the hesitation before the NETmundial meeting in April, and the enthusiasm (in general) which greeted the outcomes of that meeting, although there are still some reservations - Renata just shared hers. My sympathies lean towards a reluctance to provide legitimacy, but my common sense suggests the following: 1. As far as I can see the Netmundial Initiative will continue with or without us. 2. Civil Society is split now (and has been split for some time) so that any attempt at a boycott is likely to fail because it will be incomplete. 3. The invitation to join can be presented in such a way as to provide legitimacy even if not all of civil society agrees to accept. (This is what I meant by "manoeuvred" above.) 4. We have not been given a clear picture of what the initiative is - it may prove to be something that meets our approval - or not. 5. It is very important that any civil society representatives who join that committee should be people who go with an open mind. Those who disapprove are absenting themselves anyway; it would be better to have representatives who are initially neutral but open to be persuaded one way or the other. 6. Finally, should the initiative prove to be unacceptable, a well publicised walkout by the 5 civil society representatives (who are also representing "the world") would be much easier to arrange and much more effective than a partial boycott before the meeting takes place. The discussion at the Geneva Internet Conference about the Netmundial Initiative yesterday morning (Wednesday 19th) was useful. On Tuesday during "Same issues, different perspectives: overcoming policy silos in privacy and data protection", one of the afternoon sessions, Brian Trammell, Senior Researcher, Communication Systems Group, ETH Zurich, presenting the "technical" perspective, said of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) that members are volunteers who "participate as individuals". This is also true of the Internet Governance Caucus, and essentially of civil society as a whole. One of the freedoms that our society tries to provide is the right of the individual to follow the dictates of her/his own conscience. My own choice is a pragmatic one. It should in no way be seen as a criticism of anyone else's point of view or decision. Deirdre On 20 November 2014 11:41, Mawaki Chango > wrote: Fellas, Some of us have raised questions about the views of the Brazilian party (CGI.br) in this NMI business. But I know they are in a delicate position and may be concerned to appear as judge and jury if they come out strong for a position (and we can expect which that position would be.) Flavio is not on the IGC list but he granted me the permission to forward to this list this message of his below, originally posted to the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN's GNSO. Best, Mawaki Fw: [NCSG-Discuss] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:55 AM, Flávio Rech Wagner > wrote: Robin I have been informed that the "transitional council" of the NMI - NETmundial Initiative (which contains representatives from ICANN, CGI.br and WEF and is provisory, until the 25 names of the permanent council have been defined) is having an intense dialogue with CSCG (the Civil Society Coordination Group) and, together, they shall come to a solution for appointing names to the council by consensus and fully respecting nominations from Civil Society. There is no intention whatsoever from the transitional council to indicate names in a closed, top-down manner and without full endorsement from CSCG. The transitional council also expects to achieve similar solutions for appointing names that will represent other stakeholder groups. Please notice that CGI.br (the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee), which is one of the entities proposing the NMI, would never agree with top-down, closed decisions that would strongly undermine CGI's legitimacy as a true bottom-up, multistakeholder body. CGI.br is completely committed to preserve the NETmundial principles in the implementation of the NMI. Please remember also that, when NETmundial was proposed by the end of 2013, all of us in the global Internet Governance (IG) community, because of lack of information, were puzzled about its organization and possible success and outcomes. But the global community faced the challenge and transformed a vague idea into a successful event, with a true multistakeholder organization, with very open and transparent processes, and with a final document that was achieved by rough consensus and approved governance principles that were praised by most of the stakeholders (including human rights and other principles that are extremely valued by Civil Society). So let's try to transform NMI, which is still also a vague idea, into something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG and that fully respects the principles enshrined in the NETmundial declaration. Flávio (NCUC member and member of the Board of CGI.br) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Nov 21 15:17:11 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 21:17:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] Is multistakeholder governance democratic? (was Re: JNC perspective...) In-Reply-To: <546F7AA5.2050000@eff.org> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <1486537673.7522.1416390999726.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f29> <4D5FE9B9-60E9-4AE4-BC19-5A72B08E78A6@orange.fr> <146A4EC5-F62D-421E-98FB-E21C3CA21380@difference.com.au> <20141121142258.798a81b9@quill> <546F7AA5.2050000@eff.org> Message-ID: <20141121211711.6066bdb3@quill> Jeremy Malcolm wrote, addressing me: > As you know full well, none of those > whom you are addressing accept for a moment that their ideal of > multi-stakeholder Internet governance is undemocratic, as JNC insists > it is. > > Neither are they naïve babes in the wood who haven't fully thought > through their positions, over in some cases a decade or longer. In the meantime, the world has been changing quite significantly, for example with private communication now being to a very large extent Internet-intermediated and known to be subject to mass surveillance both by governmental agencies such as NSA (for purposes of the perceived national interest) and by private companies (for purposes of maximizing advertising related profits). How would a realistically possible pathway to ending such mass surveillance look like in the context of such a fully thought through ideal of multi-stakeholder Internet governance? Certainly ending such practices which are both unpopular and in violation of a human right must be possible if the relevant governance system is indeed democratic! Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 181 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Nov 21 15:48:19 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 12:48:19 -0800 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <1486537673.7522.1416390999726.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f29> <4D5FE9B9-60E9-4AE4-BC19-5A72B08E78A6@orange.fr> <146A4EC5-F62D-421E-98FB-E21C3CA21380@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <03ce01d005cc$7bcaf430$7360dc90$@gmail.com> I think that it is very clear by now that there is quite extensive and widespread opposition to the NMI proposal and no likelihood of a broadly supportive agreement to it from CS (and others) even in the absence of the JNC. That being the case those who have indicated that their “support” for the proposal was based on the fact that “it was going to happen in any case and so we (cs) should climb aboard so as not to miss the train”, might want to begin reconsidering their position. While the NMI certainly would have the financial resources and buy-in from various elements and directions to proceed even in the above circumstance, it would most certainly lack the legitimacy of consensus support from IG CS and thus would proceed if it did with a very considerable cloud over it’s head and visibly as a very one-sided and thus “illegitimate” approach to IG. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 12:11 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Cake; Deirdre Williams Subject: RE: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative Though David Cake and I share the viewpoint that we should keep a distance from NMI I don’t think his comments capture the main motivation for my point of view, so I need to elaborate a bit. I find myself opposing formal CS buy in to NMI Coordinating Committee not because I am opposed on principle to working with the commercial interests in a MS environment, but because I see no reason for civil society to bind itself to a quasi-institutionalized, legitimizing presence in an organization set up primarily by and for other stakeholders, especially when we have no idea what that organization will do. Even if NMI had made acceptable concessions to get CS to be represented on its coordinating committee, I don’t think we should be on that coordinating committee, formally, qua CS. As I wrote in my blog, it is in effect an attempt to establish a kind of hegemony over global internet policy and I don’t want, and don’t think anyone in CS should want, that kind of hegemony, not at this time, not in this way. If you support the Netmundial principles and road map you can pursue those in any number of ways, I don’t see why locking yourself into NMI advances that cause. In other words, NMI is just a pressure group, a coalition. Let any CS individual or CS organizations who feels comfortable coalescing with those bedfellows join it, just as they might join Web We Want or GNI, but let’s not feed the delusion that this is the only place to do internet governance. If at some point in the future NMI proposes something concrete that we can support – and by that I refer to _substantive policy_, not _process_, then we can always join in with them to help promote and advance that policy or activity. I want to know what their priorities are and what policies they are proposing in a very specific way before I throw in my lot with them. The mere fact that they are MS does not by itself win my support. I see no reason to tell them in advance that we will always support or be a part of whatever NMI does. --MM From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of David Cake Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 2:11 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative I think Deirdre speaks a fair bit of sense here. I don't think the two sides of this debate are as far apart some would suggest. The majority of CS certainly seemed to feel that the initial proposal for structure presented by the NMI founding organisations was very badly flawed. Now, it may be that there are some within JNC and other parts of civil society who are willing to write off the entire enterprise simply because WEF is one of the founding organisations, regardless of the specific role it has in the current structure. That position generally goes along with an opposition to all fora in which commercial organisations are full participants (a familiar JNC refrain), and I think we can say that is solidly a minority position within CS groups that participate in IG processes, and likely to stay that way. There are also those, primarily within the technical community, who feel that having transnational fora that can make meaningful decisions on anything related to the Internet, outside the narrow technical remit of the I* agencies, is a problem. There is perhaps a lingering sense of this within the ISOC decision (though there is more to it than that). But I get the feeling that the majority of us would cautiously welcome some more meaningful fora for addressing some broader IG issues, in the spirit of NetMundial. There are some who would rather than took place by an expanded role for the IGF, but I don't think there are many of us who think that is likely to happen in the near future. So, I think we are more or less left with a majority that feels that something with similar goals to the NMI would be valuable, but the current NMI as proposed has some very real problems in structure and process, especially with the significant role of the WEF. The big question is how to respond to the existence of this badly flawed initiative. So we essentially have divisions between those who feel the process and structure so far is so badly flawed that the best response is to ignore it and hope that a better initiative can be constructed after its failure, those who feel that with sufficient negotiation and pressure it can be wrenched into more acceptable shape, and those who feel that despite its significant flaws it might turn out to be a significant venue. I think these divisions are largely tactical (there are no insurmountable differences regarding the potential value of a forum with general aims similar to NMI, or on the significant flaws of this proposal to fill that space). Most of the arguments turn on whether or not it will turn out to be a significant forum. If it will be significant with or without CS, the argument is we should be involved. If ISOC withdrawal has already killed it, we should not bother participating. If CS involvement is the deciding factor on whether or not it will be acceptable, then how should we use that potential leverage, or should we simply drop it on principle. My opinion is that ISOC withdrawing has already holed it below the waterline, and it will not be a significant initiative unless it can drag the tech community back in to refloat it, and doing so would probably require the significant changes to the structure and process that CS wants. So, I'm probably in favour of no participation at this point, and maybe agreeing to participate at a later date if the structure is changed. But I regard that as a tactical decision at this point, and I certainly don't think anyone who does want to participate is letting down CS as a whole by choosing to do so. David On 21 Nov 2014, at 4:43 am, Deirdre Williams wrote: I asked in an earlier post whether civil society has been manoeuvred into a position in which choosing not to be involved becomes not really an option? As civil society we have a very broad range of perspective and therefore it is much more difficult for this group to act together rapidly, as ISOC has done, when the nature of the issue itself is still doubtful. Other people have already reminded us of the hesitation before the NETmundial meeting in April, and the enthusiasm (in general) which greeted the outcomes of that meeting, although there are still some reservations – Renata just shared hers. My sympathies lean towards a reluctance to provide legitimacy, but my common sense suggests the following: 1. As far as I can see the Netmundial Initiative will continue with or without us. 2. Civil Society is split now (and has been split for some time) so that any attempt at a boycott is likely to fail because it will be incomplete. 3. The invitation to join can be presented in such a way as to provide legitimacy even if not all of civil society agrees to accept. (This is what I meant by “manoeuvred” above.) 4. We have not been given a clear picture of what the initiative is – it may prove to be something that meets our approval – or not. 5. It is very important that any civil society representatives who join that committee should be people who go with an open mind. Those who disapprove are absenting themselves anyway; it would be better to have representatives who are initially neutral but open to be persuaded one way or the other. 6. Finally, should the initiative prove to be unacceptable, a well publicised walkout by the 5 civil society representatives (who are also representing “the world”) would be much easier to arrange and much more effective than a partial boycott before the meeting takes place. The discussion at the Geneva Internet Conference about the Netmundial Initiative yesterday morning (Wednesday 19th) was useful. On Tuesday during “Same issues, different perspectives: overcoming policy silos in privacy and data protection”, one of the afternoon sessions, Brian Trammell, Senior Researcher, Communication Systems Group, ETH Zurich, presenting the “technical” perspective, said of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) that members are volunteers who “participate as individuals”. This is also true of the Internet Governance Caucus, and essentially of civil society as a whole. One of the freedoms that our society tries to provide is the right of the individual to follow the dictates of her/his own conscience. My own choice is a pragmatic one. It should in no way be seen as a criticism of anyone else's point of view or decision. Deirdre On 20 November 2014 11:41, Mawaki Chango wrote: Fellas, Some of us have raised questions about the views of the Brazilian party (CGI.br) in this NMI business. But I know they are in a delicate position and may be concerned to appear as judge and jury if they come out strong for a position (and we can expect which that position would be.) Flavio is not on the IGC list but he granted me the permission to forward to this list this message of his below, originally posted to the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN's GNSO. Best, Mawaki Fw: [NCSG-Discuss] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:55 AM, Flávio Rech Wagner wrote: Robin I have been informed that the "transitional council" of the NMI - NETmundial Initiative (which contains representatives from ICANN, CGI.br and WEF and is provisory, until the 25 names of the permanent council have been defined) is having an intense dialogue with CSCG (the Civil Society Coordination Group) and, together, they shall come to a solution for appointing names to the council by consensus and fully respecting nominations from Civil Society. There is no intention whatsoever from the transitional council to indicate names in a closed, top-down manner and without full endorsement from CSCG. The transitional council also expects to achieve similar solutions for appointing names that will represent other stakeholder groups. Please notice that CGI.br (the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee), which is one of the entities proposing the NMI, would never agree with top-down, closed decisions that would strongly undermine CGI's legitimacy as a true bottom-up, multistakeholder body. CGI.br is completely committed to preserve the NETmundial principles in the implementation of the NMI. Please remember also that, when NETmundial was proposed by the end of 2013, all of us in the global Internet Governance (IG) community, because of lack of information, were puzzled about its organization and possible success and outcomes. But the global community faced the challenge and transformed a vague idea into a successful event, with a true multistakeholder organization, with very open and transparent processes, and with a final document that was achieved by rough consensus and approved governance principles that were praised by most of the stakeholders (including human rights and other principles that are extremely valued by Civil Society). So let's try to transform NMI, which is still also a vague idea, into something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG and that fully respects the principles enshrined in the NETmundial declaration. Flávio (NCUC member and member of the Board of CGI.br) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Nov 21 16:59:23 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 16:59:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <1486537673.7522.1416390999726.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f29> <4D5FE9B9-60E9-4AE4-BC19-5A72B08E78A6@orange.fr> <146A4EC5-F62D-421E-98FB-E21C3CA21380@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <21615.46523.820630.864375@world.std.com> Then again if you don't enter a room you can never storm out in protest. I realize it's not that simple. Great discussion, however. -- -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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Nov 21 18:02:02 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:02:02 -0800 Subject: [governance] JNC perspective on making Internet governance democratic (was Re: URGENT: Last call...) In-Reply-To: <546F7AA5.2050000@eff.org> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <1486537673.7522.1416390999726.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f29> <4D5FE9B9-60E9-4AE4-BC19-5A72B08E78A6@orange.fr> <146A4EC5-F62D-421E-98FB-E21C3CA21380@difference.com.au> <20141121142258.798a81b9@quill> <546F7AA5.2050000@eff.org> Message-ID: <3c72125f6eaa37ee3efdcf34dca67479.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> > On 21/11/2014 5:22 am, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> JNC certainly has every intention of working hard to convince many of >> those who are currently unconvinced of the importance and feasibility >> of making Internet governance democratic. Greetings, Norbert > > Whilst such evangelical zeal is - I suppose - admirable, do you really > think that is going to be productive, rather than just compounding the > discord you have already caused? As you know full well, none of those > whom you are addressing accept for a moment that their ideal of > multi-stakeholder Internet governance is undemocratic, as JNC insists it > is. Simple claims matter little. Lets put the proposition that your (and your associates') style multi-stakeholderism is democratic (or not) to a simple practical check. Do you *not* advocate a system for dealing with global Internet related public policies whereby corporates will have a veto on agenda shaping - meaning on letting an issue go on the agenda or not? Do you think such a clear veto to corporates in determining the agenda of public policy formation is democratic? I firmly believe that such a system is undemocratic. JNCs believes so too. And all people, groups and political theorists that I know believe, or would believe, such a practice to be definitely undemocratic. parminder ( I write this email without prejudice to my views and action reg the obnoxious emails that Jeremy wrote recently calling either an individual or a coalition as 'acting like a dick' and then declaring that the elist was off territory for "JNC pathologies". ) > > Neither are they naïve babes in the wood who haven't fully thought > through their positions, over in some cases a decade or longer. I can > assure you that there will not be some sudden transformation, as along > the road to Damascus, where the scales fall from our eyes and we convert > to the JNC ideology, if only you berate us about our sins for long enough. > > I am not saying that there is no value in you developing a socialist > critique of emerging multi-stakeholder global governance norms for which > others are advocating. But recognise that your audience for that > critique is always going to be limited, and you are not going to win > over hearts and minds with these continued personal attacks - you are > only going to continue to alienate people. > > The rather quite despicable slur that Michael levied against Anriette > and APC about not being concerned with social justice is a paradigm > example of this - I'm not claiming that it alienated Anriette and I > certainly don't expect that it will silence her, but it may certainly > alienate and silence others who respect her and APC's many years of > selfless service. > > As Ian alluded to in a recent mail, what you are doing is simply driving > people away, either completely out of the conversation, or at least into > a stated of cowed silence where they afraid to voice their opinions. If > ever you seem to have "won" the debate, it will only be because they are > frightened to contribute to it for fear of retribution, or because they > have moved their discussions to closed lists where you are not present > (indeed this is already happening). > > JNC needs to have a long, hard think about whether this is what you > really want. > > -- > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From compsoftnet at gmail.com Fri Nov 21 18:04:15 2014 From: compsoftnet at gmail.com (Akinremi Peter Taiwo) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 00:04:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration In-Reply-To: <379D159B-6A67-4AE9-9029-A46139BF4E1A@difference.com.au> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428B0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <379D159B-6A67-4AE9-9029-A46139BF4E1A@difference.com.au> Message-ID: Good information. Thank you!!!! On Nov 21, 2014 10:13 AM, "David Cake" wrote: > Yes, +1 to everything Wolfgang said. I appreciated the updates, and think > you took the right approach. > > David > > On 21 Nov 2014, at 4:07 pm, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > > Thanks Izumi, > > clear language, great job, right approach. Well done and thanks for all > the info. > > Wolfgang > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU > Gesendet: Fr 21.11.2014 06:47 > An: governance; > Betreff: [governance] Re: My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration > > We all expected that the Wuzhen Declaration would be read out at the > closing ceremony, but that did not happen. > > Later, at the lunch reception, MInister Lu Wei said in an informal > conversation "oh, we don't call it a Declaration, since you do not agree > with" to an American guest. > > It remains to be seen, however, if they will still announce it at the 3 pm > Press Conference (or not). > > izumi > > > > > 2014-11-21 11:00 GMT+09:00 Izumi AIZU : > > Here is what I just sent to the organizing committee of the World Internet > Conference. > > Izumi > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Izumi AIZU > Date: 2014-11-21 10:59 GMT+09:00 > Subject: My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration > To: Organizing Committee of World Internet Conference > > > Dear Sir/madam, > > I have been enjoying the WIC so much. Thank you for creating and sharing > this wonderful event. > > I agree with the theme - Internet governance for all - or Interconnected > world shared and governed by all. I appreciate the open dialogue sessions. > > Now, to the Wuzhen Declaration, I would like to make following comments > for the record as an active member of the Civil Society engaged in Internet > Governance and Information Society issues and make my humble reservation. > > First, getting the draft in the middle of the night and the deadline of 8 > am for any revision is impossible to accommodate. This is against the > spirit of "shared and governed by all". > > Second, there is no mention of "Multistakeholder" process or approach > which has been well accepted by most, if not all, of stakeholders at ICANN, > IGF, and other international fora for Internet governance mechanisms. Even > though there are a lot of room for improvement and reform, simply ignoring > this principle from the declaration, in my view, will greatly discredit the > value of our declaration. > > Also, there is no reference to WSIS Tunis Agenda, people-centered > information society, that is a mistake. > > No mention of UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights also severely > undermines the value and effect. > > There is too much emphasis on economic and technological potential of the > Internet, but far less views expressed to social, human and cultural > dimensions Internet will contribute. > > Following points are also observed: > > - Consensus is missing from international cooperation > > - Internet as an permissionless innovation environment > > - Accountable participation as part of cyber security activities > > - Advancement of Internet technology should build on global rough > consensus of the engineering technical community (not politics) > > - Internet as an economy of growth and that China should play a bigger > role to help developing countries from her experience > > With these reasons, I like to make my reservation on record. > > I also like to mention the statement we co-signed: > > "Community Statement Presented at Wuzhen Summit" > > > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141120_community_statement_presented_at_wuzhen_summit/ > > Thank you for your attention and understanding, I still remain committed > and connected with your great effort. > > Izumi Aizu > Senior Research Fellow and Professor, > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > www.anr.org > > > > > > -- > > Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Nov 21 18:42:03 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:42:03 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1772746e261a18240cf44a85af7af3b9.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> > Thanks Nnenna. > > Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of opinion. Ian But is it not that your passion for advocating tolerance fires rather erratically, you having entirely missed some rather sustained obnoxious utterances from your friend Jeremy, along with whom you have been for a long time now making a strong case that civil society joins the WEF MN Initiative? And also David Cake, who has all kinds of definitive views on JNC's positions - that I myself have no knowledge of, and on the general abilities, including academic and intellectual, of JNC members. In contrast, Michael’s somewhat rhetorically styled posing makes a political point of how going with WEF can be seen as compromising on social justice considerations - which is a political view shared by an overwhelming number of civil society people and groups all over the world. parminder > > Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others. It > would be good if this respect for differing opinions was reciprocated. > > The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when someones > personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that people stop > expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It would be good if we > concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And some voices have > already been silenced on this issue. > > We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can agree to > respect differences of opinion. > > Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building APC > as “ an international network and non profit organisation that wants > everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve our lives > and create a more just world”. No, she is not abandoning the pursuit of > social justice. > > Ian Peter > > > > From: Nnenna Nwakanma > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits > Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial > Initiative - RFC > > Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me the > more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is not > perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as > abandoning the pursuit of social justice? > > > If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson > Mandela. And it is him who said: > "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your > enemy. Then he becomes your partner." > > > I will rest my case for now > > > Nnenna > > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI offers > some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, > you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of social > justice. > > > > M > > > > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette > Esterhuysen > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM > To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma > Cc: Governance; Best Bits > Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in > NETmundial Initiative - RFC > > > > Dear all > > I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our > members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with > project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on > IG, so apologies for not participating. > > Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have > also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there > are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process > a try. > > I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, > and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position. > I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is > legitimate and clear. > > I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how > Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and > white'. > > My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we > expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August > have actually been addressed. > > I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more > transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its > mechanisms. > > But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we > should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at > national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to > many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive > democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through > closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental > processes and mechanisms. > > I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. > > My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the > following: > > - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us > - a limited timeframe > - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we > continue or not > > > My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it > closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to > get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our > particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the > process and whether it meets the criteria important to us. > > This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns > out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, and > we can always withdraw. > > Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive, > to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive > processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I think that > backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial > would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement, > internet governance. > > Anriette > > > > On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed > some light on why their government has decided to support this > initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? > I have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and > can't help but wonder whether I'm missing something here. > > > > For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour > of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though > as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations > who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the > wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the > Brazilian government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a > new power centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have > already given themselves some fixed seats. > > > > I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee > means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" > clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others > on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at > NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would > be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel > like the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to > rubberstamp things that would happen anyway - but because we okay > them, somehow the structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain > a legitimacy that they would not have had without. An unwise use of > our power, I would say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is > something that a representative from the WEF made clear enough to me > in an informal conversation in October. Some of the individual > initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the > structure as a whole, I am not so certain) > > > > I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring > the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by > Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're > thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it > forward. > > > > Thanks and best, > > Anja > > > > > > > > > > > > On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > > Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil > Society members here. > > My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to > table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be > withdrawn if XYZ is not met. > > I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I > dont think we should miss out. > > NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate. > From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very > interested in the NMI. > > I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to > participate but we cannot ask others not to. > > Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And > at the same time, saying that it is important for African S to > participate. > > All for now > > Nnenna > > > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global > Journal wrote: > > Jeremy, > > Thanks for your email. > > > > Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both > do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise > to terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real > politics. > > > > Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect > and impact. > > > > What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or > participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of > definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It > looks more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate > grouping of a wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep > pockets, and friends with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to > clarify the obvious tactics behind all their gesture. I had an > intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my life, and can more > than easily read the partition behind all of that smoking screen. In > the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie" when you > need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple line. > No, let's stay on what is at stake such as > > - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US > refused to discuss mass surveillance? > > - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing > and growing? > > - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, > insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part > of the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao > Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass > surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us. > > - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU > decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, > that search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple > links they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good > debate for CS. > > - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More > important than IANA for example? > > - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it > comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is > saying the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we > help ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking > at all the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed > with their innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical > corps. They also create more "values". > > > > I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. > Nevertheless, CS should really act differently. The NMI story is > relevant of the weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this > is not to blame JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote > someone today. > > > > Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in > a satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist > their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get > it not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to > go directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when > launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep > creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory > boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. > We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. > > > > So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a > debate and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, > citizens and corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the > growing asymmetry we live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of > History, and our fellow citizens, we are failing, because CS is not > united. To do that you do not need any WEF. You only need to trust, > share, and confront the realities that are taking away our rights. > This is what should be done, now, instead of wasting our time and > little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of the WEF. > > > > Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. > JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more > and more people. We should not care about that. We should care about > having a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and > the current mandarins to take more progressive steps. > Multistakeholderism when it comes to convene and consult many > participants is certainly nice. This has often been done, long > before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When it comes > to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply > doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, > they would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better > than other few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political > model. It could work, but then it would lead to some social > disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence. > > > > JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our > bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no > corporation, no barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound > democratic concern (to avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are > ready to go into rationales as long as we are not characterized as > psychotics or lunatics. > > > > There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil > society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree > that we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not > have hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in > the debate. That would be fair. > > > > JC > > > > > > > > Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : > > > > > > On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global > Journal wrote: > > > > I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. > On a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the > "dumping on civil society colleagues" you are referring to, > > > > Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post > about this at igfwatch.org, because JNC’s pathologies are > off-topic for this list. > > > > > > The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do > listen to non JNC members: > > - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread > Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask > Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is > the WIB Initiative) > > > > Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. > > > > > > - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some > quarters to create a "UN Security Council” > > > > A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? > > > > > > - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi > Chehadé: ... > > > > None of these statements support the characterisation of the > Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for > global [Internet] governance”. > > > > > > Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC > statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance > to participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to > blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are > owners of what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due > reserves by different participants. > > > > I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial > Initiative (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of > the NETmundial meeting. On this much we agree. > > > > So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... > should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious > concerns seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives > presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. > > > > Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I > certainly have > (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). > What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial > Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of > other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their > endorsement of the Initiative. > > > > Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which > was sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently > received, off list, two emails in support, as well as one against). > > > > > > By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): > > > > I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now > because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a > flight a few hours later. But I write this brief response just > because you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - > I’m not. Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your > questions rather than me monopolising the conversation. > > > > -- > > 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 :: > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________You received > this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- `````````````````````````````````anriette esterhuysenexecutive > directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755, melville, > 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 21 19:16:07 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 11:16:07 +1100 Subject: Nothing to do with internet governance or NMI WAS Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <1772746e261a18240cf44a85af7af3b9.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <1772746e261a18240cf44a85af7af3b9.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, I could probably name about a dozen people - on both sides of this debate - who have reduced this discussion to personal attacks. And yes I thought some of Jeremys comments were over the top too. If I wrote on list every time this happened I would only be adding to the noise rather than trying to reduce it. And would probably suffer from acute depression as a result. I think if you look at my postings over a few years where I have been critical of personal attacks you will see that they have been directed to anyone involved, irrespective of the policy stance they were trying to (or not trying to) convey. Ian -----Original Message----- From: parminder at itforchange.net Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 10:42 AM To: Ian Peter Cc: Nnenna Nwakanma ; michael gurstein ; Anriette Esterhuysen ; Governance ; Best Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC > Thanks Nnenna. > > Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of opinion. Ian But is it not that your passion for advocating tolerance fires rather erratically, you having entirely missed some rather sustained obnoxious utterances from your friend Jeremy, along with whom you have been for a long time now making a strong case that civil society joins the WEF MN Initiative? And also David Cake, who has all kinds of definitive views on JNC's positions - that I myself have no knowledge of, and on the general abilities, including academic and intellectual, of JNC members. In contrast, Michael’s somewhat rhetorically styled posing makes a political point of how going with WEF can be seen as compromising on social justice considerations - which is a political view shared by an overwhelming number of civil society people and groups all over the world. parminder > > Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others. It > would be good if this respect for differing opinions was reciprocated. > > The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when someones > personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that people stop > expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It would be good if we > concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And some voices have > already been silenced on this issue. > > We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can agree to > respect differences of opinion. > > Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building APC > as “ an international network and non profit organisation that wants > everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve our lives > and create a more just world”. No, she is not abandoning the pursuit of > social justice. > > Ian Peter > > > > From: Nnenna Nwakanma > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits > Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial > Initiative - RFC > > Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me the > more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is not > perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as > abandoning the pursuit of social justice? > > > If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson > Mandela. And it is him who said: > "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your > enemy. Then he becomes your partner." > > > I will rest my case for now > > > Nnenna > > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI offers > some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, > you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of social > justice. > > > > M > > > > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette > Esterhuysen > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM > To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma > Cc: Governance; Best Bits > Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in > NETmundial Initiative - RFC > > > > Dear all > > I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our > members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with > project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on > IG, so apologies for not participating. > > Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have > also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there > are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process > a try. > > I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, > and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position. > I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is > legitimate and clear. > > I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how > Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and > white'. > > My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we > expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August > have actually been addressed. > > I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more > transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its > mechanisms. > > But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we > should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at > national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to > many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive > democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through > closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental > processes and mechanisms. > > I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. > > My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the > following: > > - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us > - a limited timeframe > - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we > continue or not > > > My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it > closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to > get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our > particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the > process and whether it meets the criteria important to us. > > This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns > out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, and > we can always withdraw. > > Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive, > to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive > processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I think that > backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial > would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement, > internet governance. > > Anriette > > > > On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed > some light on why their government has decided to support this > initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? > I have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and > can't help but wonder whether I'm missing something here. > > > > For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour > of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though > as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations > who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the > wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the > Brazilian government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a > new power centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have > already given themselves some fixed seats. > > > > I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee > means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" > clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others > on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at > NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would > be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel > like the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to > rubberstamp things that would happen anyway - but because we okay > them, somehow the structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain > a legitimacy that they would not have had without. An unwise use of > our power, I would say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is > something that a representative from the WEF made clear enough to me > in an informal conversation in October. Some of the individual > initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the > structure as a whole, I am not so certain) > > > > I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring > the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by > Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're > thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it > forward. > > > > Thanks and best, > > Anja > > > > > > > > > > > > On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > > Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil > Society members here. > > My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to > table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be > withdrawn if XYZ is not met. > > I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I > dont think we should miss out. > > NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate. > From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very > interested in the NMI. > > I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to > participate but we cannot ask others not to. > > Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And > at the same time, saying that it is important for African S to > participate. > > All for now > > Nnenna > > > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global > Journal wrote: > > Jeremy, > > Thanks for your email. > > > > Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both > do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise > to terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real > politics. > > > > Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect > and impact. > > > > What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or > participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of > definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It > looks more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate > grouping of a wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep > pockets, and friends with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to > clarify the obvious tactics behind all their gesture. I had an > intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my life, and can more > than easily read the partition behind all of that smoking screen. In > the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie" when you > need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple line. > No, let's stay on what is at stake such as > > - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US > refused to discuss mass surveillance? > > - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing > and growing? > > - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, > insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part > of the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao > Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass > surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us. > > - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU > decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, > that search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple > links they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good > debate for CS. > > - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More > important than IANA for example? > > - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it > comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is > saying the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we > help ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking > at all the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed > with their innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical > corps. They also create more "values". > > > > I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. > Nevertheless, CS should really act differently. The NMI story is > relevant of the weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this > is not to blame JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote > someone today. > > > > Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in > a satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist > their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get > it not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to > go directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when > launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep > creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory > boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. > We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. > > > > So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a > debate and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, > citizens and corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the > growing asymmetry we live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of > History, and our fellow citizens, we are failing, because CS is not > united. To do that you do not need any WEF. You only need to trust, > share, and confront the realities that are taking away our rights. > This is what should be done, now, instead of wasting our time and > little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of the WEF. > > > > Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. > JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more > and more people. We should not care about that. We should care about > having a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and > the current mandarins to take more progressive steps. > Multistakeholderism when it comes to convene and consult many > participants is certainly nice. This has often been done, long > before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When it comes > to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply > doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, > they would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better > than other few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political > model. It could work, but then it would lead to some social > disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence. > > > > JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our > bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no > corporation, no barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound > democratic concern (to avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are > ready to go into rationales as long as we are not characterized as > psychotics or lunatics. > > > > There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil > society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree > that we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not > have hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in > the debate. That would be fair. > > > > JC > > > > > > > > Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : > > > > > > On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global > Journal wrote: > > > > I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. > On a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the > "dumping on civil society colleagues" you are referring to, > > > > Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post > about this at igfwatch.org, because JNC’s pathologies are > off-topic for this list. > > > > > > The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do > listen to non JNC members: > > - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread > Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask > Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is > the WIB Initiative) > > > > Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. > > > > > > - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some > quarters to create a "UN Security Council” > > > > A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? > > > > > > - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi > Chehadé: ... > > > > None of these statements support the characterisation of the > Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for > global [Internet] governance”. > > > > > > Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC > statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance > to participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to > blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are > owners of what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due > reserves by different participants. > > > > I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial > Initiative (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of > the NETmundial meeting. On this much we agree. > > > > So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... > should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious > concerns seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives > presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. > > > > Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I > certainly have > (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). > What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial > Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of > other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their > endorsement of the Initiative. > > > > Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which > was sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently > received, off list, two emails in support, as well as one against). > > > > > > By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): > > > > I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now > because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a > flight a few hours later. But I write this brief response just > because you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - > I’m not. Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your > questions rather than me monopolising the conversation. > > > > -- > > 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 :: > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________You received > this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- `````````````````````````````````anriette esterhuysenexecutive > directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755, melville, > 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 21 19:51:29 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 06:21:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <021f01d005af$a95f86d0$fc1e9470$@gmail.com> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <149c7681318.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <90B1BAF8-41AC-4305-AF25-3EDA377080A9@difference.com.au> <021f01d005af$a95f86d0$fc1e9470$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Canting jargon remains canting jargon. I also have a bit of a problem with groups having a regressively extreme left ideology labeling themselves progressive, or purveyors of "science studies" labeling themselves "academia" but those are debates for other fora. --srs (iPad) > On 21-Nov-2014, at 22:52, michael gurstein wrote: > > As anyone with any familiarity with Civil Society will know, the term Neo-liberal is a very common term of art in Civil Society analyses particularly outside of the 5 Eyes consortia countries. > > The current discussions concerning neo-liberalism in public policy areas generally link directly back to “the Washington Consensus” which has come to be understood as advocating “market fundamentalist” approaches to public policy and public goods for example the privatization of water supplies (often actively promoted by companies such as Nestle) which led to virtual civil war in Bolivia; the enforced privatization of health care in much of West Africa which has been directly linked to the failure to immediately apprehend and control Ebola in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone; the privatization and monetization of school systems throughout Africa which have led to steep declines in literacy levels throughout much of sub-Saharan Africa and other such “contributions" to the public good. > > For a more direct linkage of these discussions concerning neo-liberalism to IG see http://alainet.org/active/73028 > > M > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of David Cake > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:21 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian > Cc: Guru; Sivasubramanian M > Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative > > > On 19 Nov 2014, at 5:35 pm, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > Even within civil society, include only those sections of civil society that still use jargon like neoliberal > > As I said on another list recently, that particular bit of jargon irritates me no end. In part because you'd hope that some of us have at least a nodding familiarity with international relations theory, given how much it relates to IG, and in IR theory the term neoliberal means something quite different to its economic meaning. Yet JNC members, in particular, tend to use the term like punctuation, with no indication of any awareness of the ambiguity. > > Cheers > David > > > I suppose it is a mercy that 'evil capitalist running dogs' is out of fashion these days. > > On November 19, 2014 2:52:03 PM Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > Dear Guru, > > ​(You (Guru) said: ​ > WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated work also is structuring our participation in the information society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global surveillance > > ​If such as strong generalization of big business is to be accepted as fair and valid, then all those who subscribe to such a generalization may have to go back to the WSIS declarations and summarily exclude Business as a Stakeholder group, and then declare that Internet Governance ought to be a process with two stakeholder groups - Government + Civil Society. No, no, on second thoughts I see your reference to Snowden and USG+, so the Civil Society could exclude Government from Internet Governance, and declare that Internet Governance must be reinvented as a single stakeholder group process, with Civil Society as the only stakeholder group. > > Seriously, i > f WSIS had committed to build a " > people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society > ​", what happens to inclusiveness and development with such a position on Big Business? ​ > > > And, why this hatred for big business? Most progress in this world has happened because of enterprise, much more because of business than because of Government. Granted, some of the information technology big businesses have worked with Governments on surveillance designs, and even there, we do not know how of much of such cooperation came out of a desire for profit and how much of it was forced by arm-twisting or by milder pressures in so many subtle and imaginative ways. > > Irrespective of how WEF's role has been articulated at the moment, it is a very positive development to bring in the WEF > . > ​ > WEF participation suddenly expands business participation to a world of business outside the IT sector, so WEF's attention to IG issues might by itself act as a balancing influence within the corporate world, because many of these Big Businesses are Internet "users" themselves. > ​Some of these Big Businesses are possibly charitable in unknown ways. What is needed here is strong support at the moment, and w > e could > ​eventually ​ > work towards a greater balance across stakeholder groups.​ > ​ > > Sivasubramanian M > > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Guru wrote: > Dear Mawaki > > I would like to cite from two sources: > > A. WSIS Declaration of Principles - http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html (the very first two clauses) > > 1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world*, *assembled in Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > 2. Our challenge* is to harness the potential of information and communication technology to promote the development goals of the Millennium Declaration, namely the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; achievement of universal primary education; promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women; reduction of child mortality; improvement of maternal health; to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring environmental sustainability; and development of global partnerships for development for the attainment of a more peaceful, just and prosperous world. We also reiterate our commitment to the achievement of sustainable development and agreed development goals, as contained in the Johannesburg Declaration and Plan of Implementation and the Monterrey Consensus, and other outcomes of relevant United Nations Summits. > > I now will cite from the WEF site - http://www.weforum.org/our-members > > Begin > Our Members > The World Economic Forum is a membership organization. Our Members comprise 1,000 of the world’s top corporations, global enterprises usually with more than US$ 5 billion in turnover. These enterprises rank among the top companies within their industry and play a leading role in shaping the future of their industry and region. Some of our Member companies join the Forum’s Strategic and Industry Partnership communities, which are designed to deepen their engagement with the Forum’s events, project and initiatives. The Forum’s Members are at the heart of all our activities. > End > > It is clear that WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated work also is structuring our participation in the information society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global surveillance, which helps them in their goals of political-economic domination / colonisation > > Participating in forums anchored in such a space will only legitimise their power. I am clear that IGC should not participate in the NMI. > > thanks and regards > Guru > > Gurumurthy Kasinathan > Director, IT for Change > In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC > www.ITforChange.Net| Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890 > http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum > > > On Tuesday 18 November 2014 05:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't repeat > > the background details. In the middle of the night last night, before > > hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing catch-up with > > deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI > > Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, they are > > willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the NMI > > Coordination Council. > > > > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership of CSCG > > member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI process or > > not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations we've been > > having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and with the > > membership of our respective organizations.) After this we should be > > able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position about > > our participation in the NMI process. > > > > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be brief. > > State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement and, if > > you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you if you > > could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph (as we > > just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see what I > > mean.) > > > > Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. > > > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 21 19:55:11 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 06:25:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <21615.46523.820630.864375@world.std.com> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <1486537673.7522.1416390999726.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f29> <4D5FE9B9-60E9-4AE4-BC19-5A72B08E78A6@orange.fr> <146A4EC5-F62D-421E-98FB-E21C3CA21380@difference.com.au> <21615.46523.820630.864375@world.std.com> Message-ID: <367991B4-2879-4F4B-93D5-157311078270@hserus.net> Tchah, amateurs. Learn from Nikita Khruschev. Taking off your shoe and banging it on the table works far better in calling that sort of attention to yourself. --srs (iPad) > On 22-Nov-2014, at 03:29, Barry Shein wrote: > > > Then again if you don't enter a room you can never storm out in > protest. > > I realize it's not that simple. > > Great discussion, however. > > -- > -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 Fri Nov 21 19:57:13 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 06:27:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] JNC perspective on making Internet governance democratic (was Re: URGENT: Last call...) In-Reply-To: <3c72125f6eaa37ee3efdcf34dca67479.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <1486537673.7522.1416390999726.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f29> <4D5FE9B9-60E9-4AE4-BC19-5A72B08E78A6@orange.fr> <146A4EC5-F62D-421E-98FB-E21C3CA21380@difference.com.au> <20141121142258.798a81b9@quill> <546F7AA5.2050000@eff.org> <3c72125f6eaa37ee3efdcf34dca67479.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5CB27463-9DAA-44FC-B895-FCD11A69FB0C@hserus.net> > Do you *not* advocate a system for dealing with global Internet related > public policies whereby corporates will have a veto on agenda shaping - > meaning on letting an issue go on the agenda or not? > > Do you think such a clear veto to corporates in determining the agenda of > public policy formation is democratic? Ah. A cross between the "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" And "are you, and have you ever been, a member of the communist party?" schools of argument. --srs -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From compsoftnet at gmail.com Fri Nov 21 20:04:18 2014 From: compsoftnet at gmail.com (Akinremi Peter Taiwo) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 02:04:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <1416554639.51899.YahooMailIosMobile@web28706.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <959D9AA2-690A-4557-BEF4-302880761075@difference.com.au> Message-ID: Hi all, I would rather suggest making our intention known to NMI quickly as possible based on the terms of condition to dancing to the tone of bottom up, open, transparency,accountability and equal footing instead of limiting our actions to this mailing list. Remember, we don't have the power to make decisions but to influence it. I believe we can influence it if we position ourself tactically and strategically. Don't let some big corps limit us, we have the power to influence anything. Folks we are great, we can take anything and influence the world. Let sit at the table and give them what they don't expect. I rest my case... On Nov 21, 2014 10:03 AM, "David Cake" wrote: > > On 21 Nov 2014, at 4:53 pm, Ian Peter wrote: > > Hi David, > > Bear in mind that (as I understand it) ISOC has yet to fully consult its > chapters and members about this decision so I wouldn’t be too surprised to > see some adjustments to their current position. > > > That is true - but I understand this was a decision of the Board of > Trustees, which is a fairly large group that includes members from a > multiple chapters, so I think it relatively unlikely that broader > consultation will change it too much. > I think if their position changes, it would be more likely to be due to > changes to the NMI proposal. > > > As Jeanette pointed out, ISOC was originally opposed to the formation of > IGF, a position they reversed fairly quickly when IGF got under way. It’s > also not many years ago that ISOC was arguing for NTIA to continue its > oversight role of the root zone – a position that began to evolve after > member chapters became involved in reversing that policy decision. > > > Absolutely. I don't think ISOC will necessarily maintain opposition to the > idea of something like NMI. But will NMI itself change enough to become > that something? > > Cheers > > David (FWIW, I'm a member of ISOC-AU, but just a member, I have no > particular insight into their thinking) > > > So things do change. > > Ian Peter > > *From:* David Cake > *Sent:* Friday, November 21, 2014 6:39 PM > *To:* Arsene TUNGALI > *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; williams.deirdre at gmail.com > *Subject:* Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS > participation in NETmundial Initiative > > I think if ISOC continues to not be involved, and there is no significant > buy in from other I* orgs other than ICANN, then the NMI will not end up > being a very significant process anyway. > > But I certainly think that if the CSCG, or individual groups within it, > continue to negotiate, and particularly if there is a significant change > that responds to ISOC concerns, then that is no problem. If CS members wish > to participate in the process in the hope that happens, I have no problem > with that. > > That said, I'd be surprised if ISOC change their position without huge > changes to the process (possibly equivalent to more or less starting > again). > > I personally doubt JNC will rejoin the process unless WEF is effectively > removed from any leadership role, but I'm sure they are more than capable > of explaining their position themselves. > > David > > > On 21 Nov 2014, at 3:23 pm, Arsene TUNGALI wrote: > > David, you are right in many of the points raised but... > > Not participating, in my opinion, will result in no change of structure or > so within NMI. However, being part of it will certainly shape it. We need > people who will challenge them to sit on the same table for face-to-face > debates. > > From my understanding, ISOC, JNC and other groups who are againts will be > happy to join if there is some major changes happening. But trust me, no > change will happen if we remain on arguing on mailing lists rather than on > that table. > > I encourage those who are willing to join to go and help change the course > of things within NMI so the other CS bodies can join as well:) > > ------------------ > Arsene Tungali, > Executive Director, Rudi International > www.rudiinternational.org > > Founder, Mabingwa Forum > www.mabingwa-forum.com > Phone:+243993810967 > > ICANN Fellow | ISOC Member | Child Online Protection Advocate | Youth > Leader | Internet Governance. > Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > At 21 nov. 2014 09:10:39, David Cake<'dave at difference.com.au'> wrote:I > think Deirdre speaks a fair bit of sense here. > > I don't think the two sides of this debate are as far apart some would > suggest. > > The majority of CS certainly seemed to feel that the initial proposal for > structure presented by the NMI founding organisations was very badly flawed. > > Now, it may be that there are some within JNC and other parts of civil > society who are willing to write off the entire enterprise simply because > WEF is one of the founding organisations, regardless of the specific role > it has in the current structure. That position generally goes along with an > opposition to all fora in which commercial organisations are full > participants (a familiar JNC refrain), and I think we can say that is > solidly a minority position within CS groups that participate in IG > processes, and likely to stay that way. > > There are also those, primarily within the technical community, who feel > that having transnational fora that can make meaningful decisions on > anything related to the Internet, outside the narrow technical remit of the > I* agencies, is a problem. There is perhaps a lingering sense of this > within the ISOC decision (though there is more to it than that). But I get > the feeling that the majority of us would cautiously welcome some more > meaningful fora for addressing some broader IG issues, in the spirit of > NetMundial. There are some who would rather than took place by an expanded > role for the IGF, but I don't think there are many of us who think that is > likely to happen in the near future. > > So, I think we are more or less left with a majority that feels that > something with similar goals to the NMI would be valuable, but the current > NMI as proposed has some very real problems in structure and process, > especially with the significant role of the WEF. The big question is how to > respond to the existence of this badly flawed initiative. > > So we essentially have divisions between those who feel the process and > structure so far is so badly flawed that the best response is to ignore it > and hope that a better initiative can be constructed after its failure, > those who feel that with sufficient negotiation and pressure it can be > wrenched into more acceptable shape, and those who feel that despite its > significant flaws it might turn out to be a significant venue. I think > these divisions are largely tactical (there are no insurmountable > differences regarding the potential value of a forum with general aims > similar to NMI, or on the significant flaws of this proposal to fill that > space). Most of the arguments turn on whether or not it will turn out to be > a significant forum. If it will be significant with or without CS, the > argument is we should be involved. If ISOC withdrawal has already killed > it, we should not bother participating. If CS involvement is the deciding > factor on whether or not it will be acceptable, then how should we use that > potential leverage, or should we simply drop it on principle. > > My opinion is that ISOC withdrawing has already holed it below the > waterline, and it will not be a significant initiative unless it can drag > the tech community back in to refloat it, and doing so would probably > require the significant changes to the structure and process that CS wants. > So, I'm probably in favour of no participation at this point, and maybe > agreeing to participate at a later date if the structure is changed. But I > regard that as a tactical decision at this point, and I certainly don't > think anyone who does want to participate is letting down CS as a whole by > choosing to do so. > > David > > > On 21 Nov 2014, at 4:43 am, Deirdre Williams > wrote: > > I asked in an earlier post whether > civil society has been manoeuvred into a position in which choosing > not to be involved becomes not really an option? > As civil society we have a very broad range of perspective and > therefore it is much more difficult for this group to act together > rapidly, as ISOC has done, when the nature of the issue itself is > still doubtful. Other people have already reminded us of the > hesitation before the NETmundial meeting in April, and the enthusiasm > (in general) which greeted the outcomes of that meeting, although > there are still some reservations – Renata just shared hers. > > My sympathies lean towards a reluctance > to provide legitimacy, but my common sense suggests the following: > > > > 1. > > As far as I can see the Netmundial > Initiative will continue with or without us. > > 2. > > Civil Society is split now (and > has been split for some time) so that any attempt at a boycott is > likely to fail because it will be incomplete. > > 3. > > The invitation to join can be > presented in such a way as to provide legitimacy even if not all of > civil society agrees to accept. (This is what I meant by > “manoeuvred” above.) > > 4. > > We have not been given a clear > picture of what the initiative is – it may prove to be something > that meets our approval – or not. > > 5. > > It is very important that any > civil society representatives who join that committee should be > people who go with an open mind. Those who disapprove are absenting > themselves anyway; it would be better to have representatives who > are initially neutral but open to be persuaded one way or the other. > > 6. > > Finally, should the initiative > prove to be unacceptable, a well publicised walkout by the 5 civil > society representatives (who are also representing “the world”) > would be much easier to arrange and much more effective than a > partial boycott before the meeting takes place. > > > The discussion at the Geneva Internet > Conference about the Netmundial Initiative yesterday morning > (Wednesday 19th) was useful. On Tuesday during “ > > *Sameissues, different perspectives: overcoming policy silos in privacyand > data protection”, * > *oneof the afternoon sessions, *Brian > Trammell, Senior Researcher, Communication Systems Group, ETH Zurich, > presenting the “technical” perspective, said of the Internet > Engineering Task Force (IETF) > that members are volunteers who “participate as individuals”. > This is also true of the Internet Governance Caucus, and essentially > of civil society as a whole. One of the freedoms that our society tries to > provide is the right of the individual to follow the dictates of > her/his own conscience. My own choice is a pragmatic one. It should > in no way be seen as a criticism of anyone else's point of view or > decision. > > Deirdre > > On 20 November 2014 11:41, Mawaki Chango wrote: > >> Fellas, >> Some of us have raised questions about the views of the Brazilian party ( >> CGI.br ) in this NMI business. But I know they are in a >> delicate position and may be concerned to appear as judge and jury if they >> come out strong for a position (and we can expect which that position would >> be.) Flavio is not on the IGC list but he granted me the permission to >> forward to this list this message of his below, originally posted to the >> Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN's GNSO. >> Best, >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> Fw: [NCSG-Discuss] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL >> INITIATIVE >> >> On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:55 AM, Flávio Rech Wagner < >> flavio at INF.UFRGS.BR> wrote: >> >> >> Robin >> >> I have been informed that the "transitional council" of the NMI - >> NETmundial Initiative (which contains representatives from ICANN,CGI.br >> and WEF and is provisory, until the 25 names of the >> permanent council have been defined) is having an intense dialogue with >> CSCG (the Civil Society Coordination Group) and, together, they shall come >> to a solution for appointing names to the council by consensus and fully >> respecting nominations from Civil Society. There is no intention whatsoever >> from the transitional council to indicate names in a closed, top-down >> manner and without full endorsement from CSCG. >> >> The transitional council also expects to achieve similar solutions for >> appointing names that will represent other stakeholder groups. >> >> Please notice that CGI.br (the Brazilian Internet >> Steering Committee), which is one of the entities proposing the NMI, would >> never agree with top-down, closed decisions that would strongly undermine >> CGI's legitimacy as a true bottom-up, multistakeholder body. CGI.br >> is completely committed to preserve the NETmundial >> principles in the implementation of the NMI. >> >> Please remember also that, when NETmundial was proposed by the end of >> 2013, all of us in the global Internet Governance (IG) community, because >> of lack of information, were puzzled about its organization and possible >> success and outcomes. But the global community faced the challenge and >> transformed a vague idea into a successful event, with a true >> multistakeholder organization, with very open and transparent processes, >> and with a final document that was achieved by rough consensus and approved >> governance principles that were praised by most of the stakeholders >> (including human rights and other principles that are extremely valued by >> Civil Society). >> >> So let's try to transform NMI, which is still also a vague idea, into >> something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG and that >> fully respects the principles enshrined in the NETmundial declaration. >> >> Flávio >> (NCUC member and member of the Board of CGI.br ) >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 21 20:37:36 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 21:37:36 -0400 Subject: Nothing to do with internet governance or NMI WAS Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <1772746e261a18240cf44a85af7af3b9.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: Did Wikileaks and Snowden hit us so hard that we stopped trusting each other as well as "them", the ones who are watching us all the time, the ones we thought we could trust? The Istanbul IGC face to face meeting, which didn't happen, (my fault, I was so busy I forgot to send reminders and there was also a confusion about the room,) ended up with three of us - Nnenna, Anja and myself, and Mawaki waiting at the other end of a skype connection. (Thank you to those who came and to all of you who apologised for not turning up). We chatted while we were waiting, nothing formal, just brainstorming about the IGC and its troubles. We came to the conclusion that initially the IGC brought many different views to the table, but in an atmosphere of mutual respect. The tension, the quarrel if you like, was between the different view points, not between the different members. People brought their own ideas, but they also brought a willingness to listen. The atmosphere was positive, negotiation towards common ground in so far as that was possible. (Not all of the time of course - IGC members are as human as anyone else, but mostly) Somewhere that got lost, and the trust that had enabled to group to work together in spite of many differences just disappeared. And a huge rift drained strength from the civil society lobby. Trusting is fairly easy to do at the beginning of a relationship, almost automatic. But if that initial trust is lost then it becomes really hard work requiring a great deal of self-control to rebuild it. We should ask ourselves whether we have the energy to rebuild that trust, because without it I don't think we're going to get very far. Rather more than two cents worth Deirdre On 21 November 2014 20:16, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > I could probably name about a dozen people - on both sides of this debate > - who have reduced this discussion to personal attacks. And yes I thought > some of Jeremys comments were over the top too. > > If I wrote on list every time this happened I would only be adding to the > noise rather than trying to reduce it. And would probably suffer from acute > depression as a result. > > I think if you look at my postings over a few years where I have been > critical of personal attacks you will see that they have been directed to > anyone involved, irrespective of the policy stance they were trying to (or > not trying to) convey. > > Ian > > -----Original Message----- From: parminder at itforchange.net > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 10:42 AM > To: Ian Peter > Cc: Nnenna Nwakanma ; michael gurstein ; Anriette Esterhuysen ; Governance > ; Best Bits > Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial > Initiative - RFC > > Thanks Nnenna. >> >> Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of opinion. >> > > Ian > > But is it not that your passion for advocating tolerance fires rather > erratically, you having entirely missed some rather sustained obnoxious > utterances from your friend Jeremy, along with whom you have been for a > long time now making a strong case that civil society joins the WEF MN > Initiative? And also David Cake, who has all kinds of definitive views on > JNC's positions - that I myself have no knowledge of, and on the general > abilities, including academic and intellectual, of JNC members. > > In contrast, Michael’s somewhat rhetorically styled posing makes a > political point of how going with WEF can be seen as compromising on > social justice considerations - which is a political view shared by an > overwhelming number of civil society people and groups all over the world. > > parminder > > > > >> Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others. It >> would be good if this respect for differing opinions was reciprocated. >> >> The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when someones >> personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that people stop >> expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It would be good if we >> concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And some voices have >> already been silenced on this issue. >> >> We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can agree to >> respect differences of opinion. >> >> Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building APC >> as “ an international network and non profit organisation that wants >> everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve our lives >> and create a more just world†. No, she is not abandoning the pursuit of >> social justice. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> From: Nnenna Nwakanma >> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM >> To: michael gurstein >> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial >> Initiative - RFC >> >> Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me the >> more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is not >> perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as >> abandoning the pursuit of social justice? >> >> >> If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson >> Mandela. And it is him who said: >> "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your >> enemy. Then he becomes your partner." >> >> >> I will rest my case for now >> >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein >> wrote: >> >> So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI offers >> some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, >> you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of social >> justice. >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> >> >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette >> Esterhuysen >> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM >> To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma >> Cc: Governance; Best Bits >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in >> NETmundial Initiative - RFC >> >> >> >> Dear all >> >> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our >> members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with >> project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on >> IG, so apologies for not participating. >> >> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have >> also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there >> are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process >> a try. >> >> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, >> and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position. >> I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is >> legitimate and clear. >> >> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how >> Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and >> white'. >> >> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we >> expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August >> have actually been addressed. >> >> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more >> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its >> mechanisms. >> >> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we >> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at >> national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to >> many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive >> democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through >> closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental >> processes and mechanisms. >> >> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. >> >> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the >> following: >> >> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us >> - a limited timeframe >> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we >> continue or not >> >> >> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it >> closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to >> get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our >> particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the >> process and whether it meets the criteria important to us. >> >> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns >> out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, and >> we can always withdraw. >> >> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive, >> to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive >> processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I think that >> backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial >> would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement, >> internet governance. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed >> some light on why their government has decided to support this >> initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? >> I have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and >> can't help but wonder whether I'm missing something here. >> >> >> >> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour >> of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though >> as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations >> who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the >> wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the >> Brazilian government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a >> new power centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have >> already given themselves some fixed seats. >> >> >> >> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee >> means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" >> clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others >> on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at >> NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would >> be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel >> like the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to >> rubberstamp things that would happen anyway - but because we okay >> them, somehow the structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain >> a legitimacy that they would not have had without. An unwise use of >> our power, I would say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is >> something that a representative from the WEF made clear enough to me >> in an informal conversation in October. Some of the individual >> initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the >> structure as a whole, I am not so certain) >> >> >> >> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring >> the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by >> Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're >> thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it >> forward. >> >> >> >> Thanks and best, >> >> Anja >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma >> wrote: >> >> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil >> Society members here. >> >> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to >> table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be >> withdrawn if XYZ is not met. >> >> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I >> dont think we should miss out. >> >> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate. >> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very >> interested in the NMI. >> >> I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to >> participate but we cannot ask others not to. >> >> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And >> at the same time, saying that it is important for African S to >> participate. >> >> All for now >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >> Journal wrote: >> >> Jeremy, >> >> Thanks for your email. >> >> >> >> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both >> do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise >> to terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real >> politics. >> >> >> >> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect >> and impact. >> >> >> >> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or >> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of >> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It >> looks more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate >> grouping of a wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep >> pockets, and friends with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to >> clarify the obvious tactics behind all their gesture. I had an >> intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my life, and can more >> than easily read the partition behind all of that smoking screen. In >> the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie" when you >> need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple line. >> No, let's stay on what is at stake such as >> >> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US >> refused to discuss mass surveillance? >> >> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing >> and growing? >> >> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, >> insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part >> of the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao >> Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass >> surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us. >> >> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU >> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, >> that search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple >> links they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good >> debate for CS. >> >> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More >> important than IANA for example? >> >> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it >> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is >> saying the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we >> help ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking >> at all the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed >> with their innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical >> corps. They also create more "values". >> >> >> >> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. >> Nevertheless, CS should really act differently. The NMI story is >> relevant of the weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this >> is not to blame JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote >> someone today. >> >> >> >> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in >> a satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist >> their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get >> it not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to >> go directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when >> launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep >> creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory >> boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. >> We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. >> >> >> >> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a >> debate and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, >> citizens and corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the >> growing asymmetry we live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of >> History, and our fellow citizens, we are failing, because CS is not >> united. To do that you do not need any WEF. You only need to trust, >> share, and confront the realities that are taking away our rights. >> This is what should be done, now, instead of wasting our time and >> little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of the WEF. >> >> >> >> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. >> JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more >> and more people. We should not care about that. We should care about >> having a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and >> the current mandarins to take more progressive steps. >> Multistakeholderism when it comes to convene and consult many >> participants is certainly nice. This has often been done, long >> before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When it comes >> to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply >> doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, >> they would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better >> than other few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political >> model. It could work, but then it would lead to some social >> disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence. >> >> >> >> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our >> bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no >> corporation, no barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound >> democratic concern (to avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are >> ready to go into rationales as long as we are not characterized as >> psychotics or lunatics. >> >> >> >> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil >> society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree >> that we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not >> have hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in >> the debate. That would be fair. >> >> >> >> JC >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : >> >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >> Journal wrote: >> >> >> >> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. >> On a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the >> "dumping on civil society colleagues" you are referring to, >> >> >> >> Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post >> about this at igfwatch.org, because JNC’s pathologies are >> off-topic for this list. >> >> >> >> >> >> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do >> listen to non JNC members: >> >> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread >> Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask >> Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is >> the WIB Initiative) >> >> >> >> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. >> >> >> >> >> >> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some >> quarters to create a "UN Security Council†>> >> >> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? >> >> >> >> >> >> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi >> Chehadé: ... >> >> >> >> None of these statements support the characterisation of the >> Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for >> global [Internet] governance†. >> >> >> >> >> >> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC >> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance >> to participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to >> blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are >> owners of what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due >> reserves by different participants. >> >> >> >> I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial >> Initiative (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of >> the NETmundial meeting. On this much we agree. >> >> >> >> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... >> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious >> concerns seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives >> presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. >> >> >> >> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I >> certainly have >> (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial- >> initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the- >> netmundial-principles). >> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial >> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of >> other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their >> endorsement of the Initiative. >> >> >> >> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which >> was sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently >> received, off list, two emails in support, as well as one against). >> >> >> >> >> >> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): >> >> >> >> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now >> because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a >> flight a few hours later. But I write this brief response just >> because you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - >> I’m not. Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your >> questions rather than me monopolising the conversation. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> 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 :: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________You received >> this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To unsubscribe or change your settings, >> visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> -- `````````````````````````````````anriette esterhuysenexecutive >> directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755, melville, >> 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> -------------------- >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits_________________ >> ___________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr Sat Nov 22 00:14:45 2014 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 05:14:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1416633285.59740.YahooMailIosMobile@web28701.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr Sat Nov 22 00:18:13 2014 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 05:18:13 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <1772746e261a18240cf44a85af7af3b9.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1416633493.32989.YahooMailIosMobile@web28706.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Nov 22 01:19:54 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 07:19:54 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Nothing to do with internet governance or NMI WAS Re: [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <1772746e261a18240cf44a85af7af3b9.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: <170887ED-E12C-4CC0-A096-8D953A6BD959@theglobaljournal.net> Peter, I think it would be appropriate to gently refrain subscribers from falling into personal attack, or in abusively labeling others' opinion or view, discriminating any one for its citizenship, religion... Calling to refrain might not lead to more attack, but maybe cool down minds. At least, it is worth the try. As many have said, to start with Deirdre, the pathway back to trust will come from courtesy and respect of the one another, and from acceptance of diversity of views. In any democratic system, a vote ends the fight and everyone has to accept the result. Within these different lists, we all know that too much time is wasted in "process regarding nominations". This cannot be a surprise, because most of the time there is no clear cut principle to "end" the debate. A few +1, the "temperature of the room", the "wet finger", all of that does not help and are more or less pre- democratic (not yet democratic). When it comes to code, rough consensus can work because you have something that everyone can see working "better" than the other suggested technical options. When it comes to ethics or politics, no one can really say if the decision drives into something that "work". Every time such processes are conducted, they result in an addition of distrust. And because the debate here is not about technical norms, it is hard to imagine that pre-democratic processes can lead to a "democratic multistakeholder" as called by the Net Mundial conclusion in Sao Paulo, anytime soon. But we can still try of course. If respect is part of the story that could help. JC Le 22 nov. 2014 à 01:16, Ian Peter a écrit : > Hi Parminder, > > I could probably name about a dozen people - on both sides of this debate - who have reduced this discussion to personal attacks. And yes I thought some of Jeremys comments were over the top too. > > If I wrote on list every time this happened I would only be adding to the noise rather than trying to reduce it. And would probably suffer from acute depression as a result. > > I think if you look at my postings over a few years where I have been critical of personal attacks you will see that they have been directed to anyone involved, irrespective of the policy stance they were trying to (or not trying to) convey. > > Ian > > -----Original Message----- From: parminder at itforchange.net > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 10:42 AM > To: Ian Peter > Cc: Nnenna Nwakanma ; michael gurstein ; Anriette Esterhuysen ; Governance ; Best Bits > Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC > >> Thanks Nnenna. >> >> Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of opinion. > > Ian > > But is it not that your passion for advocating tolerance fires rather > erratically, you having entirely missed some rather sustained obnoxious > utterances from your friend Jeremy, along with whom you have been for a > long time now making a strong case that civil society joins the WEF MN > Initiative? And also David Cake, who has all kinds of definitive views on > JNC's positions - that I myself have no knowledge of, and on the general > abilities, including academic and intellectual, of JNC members. > > In contrast, Michael’s somewhat rhetorically styled posing makes a > political point of how going with WEF can be seen as compromising on > social justice considerations - which is a political view shared by an > overwhelming number of civil society people and groups all over the world. > > parminder > > > >> >> Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others. It >> would be good if this respect for differing opinions was reciprocated. >> >> The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when someones >> personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that people stop >> expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It would be good if we >> concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And some voices have >> already been silenced on this issue. >> >> We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can agree to >> respect differences of opinion. >> >> Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building APC >> as “ an international network and non profit organisation that wants >> everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve our lives >> and create a more just world”. No, she is not abandoning the pursuit of >> social justice. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> From: Nnenna Nwakanma >> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM >> To: michael gurstein >> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial >> Initiative - RFC >> >> Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me the >> more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is not >> perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as >> abandoning the pursuit of social justice? >> >> >> If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson >> Mandela. And it is him who said: >> "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your >> enemy. Then he becomes your partner." >> >> >> I will rest my case for now >> >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein >> wrote: >> >> So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI offers >> some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, >> you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of social >> justice. >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> >> >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette >> Esterhuysen >> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM >> To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma >> Cc: Governance; Best Bits >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in >> NETmundial Initiative - RFC >> >> >> >> Dear all >> >> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our >> members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with >> project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on >> IG, so apologies for not participating. >> >> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have >> also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there >> are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process >> a try. >> >> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, >> and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position. >> I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is >> legitimate and clear. >> >> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how >> Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and >> white'. >> >> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we >> expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August >> have actually been addressed. >> >> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more >> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its >> mechanisms. >> >> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we >> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at >> national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to >> many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive >> democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through >> closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental >> processes and mechanisms. >> >> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. >> >> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the >> following: >> >> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us >> - a limited timeframe >> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we >> continue or not >> >> >> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it >> closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to >> get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our >> particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the >> process and whether it meets the criteria important to us. >> >> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns >> out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, and >> we can always withdraw. >> >> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive, >> to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive >> processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I think that >> backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial >> would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement, >> internet governance. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed >> some light on why their government has decided to support this >> initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? >> I have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and >> can't help but wonder whether I'm missing something here. >> >> >> >> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour >> of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though >> as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations >> who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the >> wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the >> Brazilian government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a >> new power centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have >> already given themselves some fixed seats. >> >> >> >> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee >> means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" >> clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others >> on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at >> NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would >> be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel >> like the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to >> rubberstamp things that would happen anyway - but because we okay >> them, somehow the structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain >> a legitimacy that they would not have had without. An unwise use of >> our power, I would say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is >> something that a representative from the WEF made clear enough to me >> in an informal conversation in October. Some of the individual >> initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the >> structure as a whole, I am not so certain) >> >> >> >> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring >> the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by >> Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're >> thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it >> forward. >> >> >> >> Thanks and best, >> >> Anja >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >> >> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil >> Society members here. >> >> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to >> table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be >> withdrawn if XYZ is not met. >> >> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I >> dont think we should miss out. >> >> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate. >> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very >> interested in the NMI. >> >> I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to >> participate but we cannot ask others not to. >> >> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And >> at the same time, saying that it is important for African S to >> participate. >> >> All for now >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >> Journal wrote: >> >> Jeremy, >> >> Thanks for your email. >> >> >> >> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both >> do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise >> to terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real >> politics. >> >> >> >> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect >> and impact. >> >> >> >> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or >> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of >> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It >> looks more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate >> grouping of a wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep >> pockets, and friends with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to >> clarify the obvious tactics behind all their gesture. I had an >> intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my life, and can more >> than easily read the partition behind all of that smoking screen. In >> the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie" when you >> need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple line. >> No, let's stay on what is at stake such as >> >> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US >> refused to discuss mass surveillance? >> >> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing >> and growing? >> >> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, >> insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part >> of the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao >> Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass >> surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us. >> >> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU >> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, >> that search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple >> links they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good >> debate for CS. >> >> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More >> important than IANA for example? >> >> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it >> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is >> saying the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we >> help ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking >> at all the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed >> with their innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical >> corps. They also create more "values". >> >> >> >> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. >> Nevertheless, CS should really act differently. The NMI story is >> relevant of the weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this >> is not to blame JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote >> someone today. >> >> >> >> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in >> a satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist >> their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get >> it not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to >> go directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when >> launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep >> creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory >> boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. >> We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. >> >> >> >> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a >> debate and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, >> citizens and corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the >> growing asymmetry we live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of >> History, and our fellow citizens, we are failing, because CS is not >> united. To do that you do not need any WEF. You only need to trust, >> share, and confront the realities that are taking away our rights. >> This is what should be done, now, instead of wasting our time and >> little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of the WEF. >> >> >> >> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. >> JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more >> and more people. We should not care about that. We should care about >> having a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and >> the current mandarins to take more progressive steps. >> Multistakeholderism when it comes to convene and consult many >> participants is certainly nice. This has often been done, long >> before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When it comes >> to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply >> doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, >> they would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better >> than other few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political >> model. It could work, but then it would lead to some social >> disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence. >> >> >> >> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our >> bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no >> corporation, no barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound >> democratic concern (to avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are >> ready to go into rationales as long as we are not characterized as >> psychotics or lunatics. >> >> >> >> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil >> society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree >> that we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not >> have hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in >> the debate. That would be fair. >> >> >> >> JC >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : >> >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >> Journal wrote: >> >> >> >> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. >> On a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the >> "dumping on civil society colleagues" you are referring to, >> >> >> >> Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post >> about this at igfwatch.org, because JNC’s pathologies are >> off-topic for this list. >> >> >> >> >> >> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do >> listen to non JNC members: >> >> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread >> Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask >> Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is >> the WIB Initiative) >> >> >> >> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. >> >> >> >> >> >> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some >> quarters to create a "UN Security Council” >> >> >> >> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? >> >> >> >> >> >> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi >> Chehadé: ... >> >> >> >> None of these statements support the characterisation of the >> Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for >> global [Internet] governance”. >> >> >> >> >> >> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC >> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance >> to participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to >> blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are >> owners of what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due >> reserves by different participants. >> >> >> >> I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial >> Initiative (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of >> the NETmundial meeting. On this much we agree. >> >> >> >> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... >> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious >> concerns seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives >> presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. >> >> >> >> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I >> certainly have >> (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). >> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial >> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of >> other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their >> endorsement of the Initiative. >> >> >> >> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which >> was sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently >> received, off list, two emails in support, as well as one against). >> >> >> >> >> >> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): >> >> >> >> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now >> because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a >> flight a few hours later. But I write this brief response just >> because you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - >> I’m not. Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your >> questions rather than me monopolising the conversation. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> 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 :: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________You received >> this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> -- `````````````````````````````````anriette esterhuysenexecutive >> directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755, melville, >> 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Nov 22 04:17:50 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 10:17:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] Moving Foreward into the 2015 Agenda References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <1772746e261a18240cf44a85af7af3b9.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <170887ED-E12C-4CC0-A096-8D953A6BD959@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428BC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Der all, we had a lot of discussions about pros and cons around NMI. This has helped to clear the air. Now we know better the arguments of the different groups. Transparency is always good. But we should not forget that the challenges for 2015 are much broader than NMI. We should come back to a more forward looking and constructive approach and concrete plans for the 2015 Internet Governance Agenda, which is fully packed. I repeat my proposal to start a discussion what the priorities and most urgent projects should be for Civil Society organisations for the global Internet Governance discussion in the post NetMundial Phase. We have numerous (old and new) channels where we can raise our voices, either individually or collectivly (if possible). Here is my list of venues where we have to do something in 2015. Probably there are some more. Please add if I have forgotten something: 1. IGF MAG Meeting in early December in Geneva and preparations for the 10th IGF in Brazil (November 2015); 2. Conclusions from the Interesessional UNCSTD Meeting (November 2014) and preparation for the regular May 2015 Meeting of UNCSTD in Geneva (What we will do with the ongoing mapping process started by the "Correspondence Group"?) 3. We Need a strategy how to start our involvement into the WSIS 10+ process. Should we accept to be excluded from the final discussions and negotiations, scheduled for December 2015 in New York? 4. Do we have a position with regard to the Brazilian-German initiative in the UN General Assembly in the right of privacy? Should we publish a Statement to Support the Establishment of a Special Rapporteur for Privacy under the HRC? 5. Do we have anything to say if the 2nd Committee of the UNGA adopts ist new Resolution on ICT on Development? If the renewal of the IGF Mandate is not made in December 2014, should we prepare a Statement with our proposals? 6. Do we have a position with regard to the Cybersecurity issues discussed by the Group of Governmental Experts under the 1st Committeee of the UN General Assembly? Should we make a statement on Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) for the Cyberspace? 7. What we will do with the invitation by the ITU to have open consultations before the closed meetings of the ITU Council Working Group on Internet Governance, as it was decided in Busan? 8. Do we have anything to say with regard to the work of the Global Commission on Internet Governance (Bildt Commission)? They prepare a report for January 2016? Any input from our side? 9. Do we have something to say to the plans of the BRICS countries to prepare a cybersecurity convention? The next BRICS Summitt Meeting is planned for July 2015 in Ufa/Russia. Are we here silent? 10. How to make use of the Net Mundial follow up? Should we use the NMI to launch projects which CS sees as important (training, education, human rights assessment procedures for national and international Internet related public policy making, access to broadband, net neutrality, privacy in the Internet of Things etc.). 11. Should we contribute more activly to the open processes under ICANN (IANA stewardship tranisiton and ICANN accountrability) 12. Should we have a look into the work of the IETF after their Honolulu meeting and the discussion on human rights? 13. Do we have any ideas how to move forward with national multistakeholder Internet Governance IGFs/platforms? 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Nov 22 04:25:15 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 10:25:15 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428B0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <379D159B-6A67-4AE9-9029-A46139BF4E1A@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428BD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi the english Version of the conference Website is now closed: http://www.wicnews.cn/indexen.shtml Does anybody have any more information on the adopted text of the final document, its status etc.? Are there text of speeches or transcripts from meetings (beyond Izumi notes)available? Thanks Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Akinremi Peter Taiwo Gesendet: Sa 22.11.2014 00:04 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Cake Betreff: Re: [governance] My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration Good information. Thank you!!!! On Nov 21, 2014 10:13 AM, "David Cake" wrote: > Yes, +1 to everything Wolfgang said. I appreciated the updates, and think > you took the right approach. > > David > > On 21 Nov 2014, at 4:07 pm, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > > Thanks Izumi, > > clear language, great job, right approach. Well done and thanks for all > the info. > > Wolfgang > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU > Gesendet: Fr 21.11.2014 06:47 > An: governance; > Betreff: [governance] Re: My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration > > We all expected that the Wuzhen Declaration would be read out at the > closing ceremony, but that did not happen. > > Later, at the lunch reception, MInister Lu Wei said in an informal > conversation "oh, we don't call it a Declaration, since you do not agree > with" to an American guest. > > It remains to be seen, however, if they will still announce it at the 3 pm > Press Conference (or not). > > izumi > > > > > 2014-11-21 11:00 GMT+09:00 Izumi AIZU : > > Here is what I just sent to the organizing committee of the World Internet > Conference. > > Izumi > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Izumi AIZU > Date: 2014-11-21 10:59 GMT+09:00 > Subject: My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration > To: Organizing Committee of World Internet Conference > > > Dear Sir/madam, > > I have been enjoying the WIC so much. Thank you for creating and sharing > this wonderful event. > > I agree with the theme - Internet governance for all - or Interconnected > world shared and governed by all. I appreciate the open dialogue sessions. > > Now, to the Wuzhen Declaration, I would like to make following comments > for the record as an active member of the Civil Society engaged in Internet > Governance and Information Society issues and make my humble reservation. > > First, getting the draft in the middle of the night and the deadline of 8 > am for any revision is impossible to accommodate. This is against the > spirit of "shared and governed by all". > > Second, there is no mention of "Multistakeholder" process or approach > which has been well accepted by most, if not all, of stakeholders at ICANN, > IGF, and other international fora for Internet governance mechanisms. Even > though there are a lot of room for improvement and reform, simply ignoring > this principle from the declaration, in my view, will greatly discredit the > value of our declaration. > > Also, there is no reference to WSIS Tunis Agenda, people-centered > information society, that is a mistake. > > No mention of UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights also severely > undermines the value and effect. > > There is too much emphasis on economic and technological potential of the > Internet, but far less views expressed to social, human and cultural > dimensions Internet will contribute. > > Following points are also observed: > > - Consensus is missing from international cooperation > > - Internet as an permissionless innovation environment > > - Accountable participation as part of cyber security activities > > - Advancement of Internet technology should build on global rough > consensus of the engineering technical community (not politics) > > - Internet as an economy of growth and that China should play a bigger > role to help developing countries from her experience > > With these reasons, I like to make my reservation on record. > > I also like to mention the statement we co-signed: > > "Community Statement Presented at Wuzhen Summit" > > > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141120_community_statement_presented_at_wuzhen_summit/ > > Thank you for your attention and understanding, I still remain committed > and connected with your great effort. > > Izumi Aizu > Senior Research Fellow and Professor, > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > www.anr.org > > > > > > -- > > Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Nov 22 04:44:41 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 10:44:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] On positioning within the left-right political spectrum (was Re: URGENT: Last call...) In-Reply-To: References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <149c7681318.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <90B1BAF8-41AC-4305-AF25-3EDA377080A9@difference.com.au> <021f01d005af$a95f86d0$fc1e9470$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20141122104441.0ad4f08a@quill> On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 06:21:29 +0530 Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Canting jargon remains canting jargon. I also have a bit of a > problem with groups having a regressively extreme left ideology > labeling themselves progressive I'm commenting because I read this slur as being directed towards JNC, where indeed groups who see themselves as progressive are welcome as members. JNC is however not in any way adopting an extremist ideology or extremist positions. The IGC Charter at http://igcaucus.org/charter which defines this group here (IGC) speaks twice of “civil society and other progressive groups or actors”, implying that civil society is supposed to progressive, and thereby firmly defining IGC as part of the set of groups which see themselves as progressive. Whether this aspect of the IGC Charter still has something to do with the current reality of IGC, or more broadly with the general state of civil society specifically in the Internet governance space, is of course a different question. In any case, in terms of the classical left-right political spectrum, using the term “progressive” as part of a group's self-image does not mean that the group's positions would necessarily be strictly leftist, in the sense of the positions being unacceptable to most of those who see themselves as being firmly democratically centrist. It however means that the group claims to work towards aims which are generally acceptable to those who see themselves as progressives, i.e. those at least a little on the left. We define the political identity of JNC as seeking to advance all human rights, including democracy and economic and social justice, a cause which unites many who see themselves as progressives and many who see themselves as democratic centrists. Greetings, Norbert co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) http://justnetcoalition,org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Nov 22 05:11:24 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 11:11:24 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428B0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <379D159B-6A67-4AE9-9029-A46139BF4E1A@difference.com.au> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428BD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428C0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Here is what I found sofar: http://de.scribd.com/doc/247566581/World-Internet-Conference-Draft-Declaration This is the draft by the organizers which was not adopted, as Izumi told me. Does somebody have a final document? Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Gesendet: Sa 22.11.2014 10:25 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Akinremi Peter Taiwo; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Cake Betreff: AW: [governance] My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration Hi the english Version of the conference Website is now closed: http://www.wicnews.cn/indexen.shtml Does anybody have any more information on the adopted text of the final document, its status etc.? Are there text of speeches or transcripts from meetings (beyond Izumi notes)available? Thanks Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Akinremi Peter Taiwo Gesendet: Sa 22.11.2014 00:04 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Cake Betreff: Re: [governance] My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration Good information. Thank you!!!! On Nov 21, 2014 10:13 AM, "David Cake" wrote: > Yes, +1 to everything Wolfgang said. I appreciated the updates, and think > you took the right approach. > > David > > On 21 Nov 2014, at 4:07 pm, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > > Thanks Izumi, > > clear language, great job, right approach. Well done and thanks for all > the info. > > Wolfgang > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU > Gesendet: Fr 21.11.2014 06:47 > An: governance; > Betreff: [governance] Re: My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration > > We all expected that the Wuzhen Declaration would be read out at the > closing ceremony, but that did not happen. > > Later, at the lunch reception, MInister Lu Wei said in an informal > conversation "oh, we don't call it a Declaration, since you do not agree > with" to an American guest. > > It remains to be seen, however, if they will still announce it at the 3 pm > Press Conference (or not). > > izumi > > > > > 2014-11-21 11:00 GMT+09:00 Izumi AIZU : > > Here is what I just sent to the organizing committee of the World Internet > Conference. > > Izumi > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Izumi AIZU > Date: 2014-11-21 10:59 GMT+09:00 > Subject: My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration > To: Organizing Committee of World Internet Conference > > > Dear Sir/madam, > > I have been enjoying the WIC so much. Thank you for creating and sharing > this wonderful event. > > I agree with the theme - Internet governance for all - or Interconnected > world shared and governed by all. I appreciate the open dialogue sessions. > > Now, to the Wuzhen Declaration, I would like to make following comments > for the record as an active member of the Civil Society engaged in Internet > Governance and Information Society issues and make my humble reservation. > > First, getting the draft in the middle of the night and the deadline of 8 > am for any revision is impossible to accommodate. This is against the > spirit of "shared and governed by all". > > Second, there is no mention of "Multistakeholder" process or approach > which has been well accepted by most, if not all, of stakeholders at ICANN, > IGF, and other international fora for Internet governance mechanisms. Even > though there are a lot of room for improvement and reform, simply ignoring > this principle from the declaration, in my view, will greatly discredit the > value of our declaration. > > Also, there is no reference to WSIS Tunis Agenda, people-centered > information society, that is a mistake. > > No mention of UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights also severely > undermines the value and effect. > > There is too much emphasis on economic and technological potential of the > Internet, but far less views expressed to social, human and cultural > dimensions Internet will contribute. > > Following points are also observed: > > - Consensus is missing from international cooperation > > - Internet as an permissionless innovation environment > > - Accountable participation as part of cyber security activities > > - Advancement of Internet technology should build on global rough > consensus of the engineering technical community (not politics) > > - Internet as an economy of growth and that China should play a bigger > role to help developing countries from her experience > > With these reasons, I like to make my reservation on record. > > I also like to mention the statement we co-signed: > > "Community Statement Presented at Wuzhen Summit" > > > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141120_community_statement_presented_at_wuzhen_summit/ > > Thank you for your attention and understanding, I still remain committed > and connected with your great effort. > > Izumi Aizu > Senior Research Fellow and Professor, > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > www.anr.org > > > > > > -- > > Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 yesunhoo at gmail.com Sat Nov 22 06:26:46 2014 From: yesunhoo at gmail.com (Young-eum Lee) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 20:26:46 +0900 Subject: AW: [governance] My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428C0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428B0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <379D159B-6A67-4AE9-9029-A46139BF4E1A@difference.com.au> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428BD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428C0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <6AF5822E-4453-4E05-9331-1385E1B5EA52@gmail.com> Thanks for raising the important issues and for the update, Izumi. - kind regards, - Young-eum Lee Sent from my iPhone > On 2014. 11. 22., at 19:11, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > Here is what I found sofar: http://de.scribd.com/doc/247566581/World-Internet-Conference-Draft-Declaration > > This is the draft by the organizers which was not adopted, as Izumi told me. Does somebody have a final document? > > Wolfgang > > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Gesendet: Sa 22.11.2014 10:25 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Akinremi Peter Taiwo; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Cake > Betreff: AW: [governance] My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration > > Hi > > the english Version of the conference Website is now closed: > http://www.wicnews.cn/indexen.shtml > > Does anybody have any more information on the adopted text of the final document, its status etc.? Are there text of speeches or transcripts from meetings (beyond Izumi notes)available? > > Thanks > > Wolfgang > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Akinremi Peter Taiwo > Gesendet: Sa 22.11.2014 00:04 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Cake > Betreff: Re: [governance] My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration > > Good information. Thank you!!!! >> On Nov 21, 2014 10:13 AM, "David Cake" wrote: >> >> Yes, +1 to everything Wolfgang said. I appreciated the updates, and think >> you took the right approach. >> >> David >> >> On 21 Nov 2014, at 4:07 pm, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang < >> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: >> >> Thanks Izumi, >> >> clear language, great job, right approach. Well done and thanks for all >> the info. >> >> Wolfgang >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU >> Gesendet: Fr 21.11.2014 06:47 >> An: governance; >> Betreff: [governance] Re: My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration >> >> We all expected that the Wuzhen Declaration would be read out at the >> closing ceremony, but that did not happen. >> >> Later, at the lunch reception, MInister Lu Wei said in an informal >> conversation "oh, we don't call it a Declaration, since you do not agree >> with" to an American guest. >> >> It remains to be seen, however, if they will still announce it at the 3 pm >> Press Conference (or not). >> >> izumi >> >> >> >> >> 2014-11-21 11:00 GMT+09:00 Izumi AIZU : >> >> Here is what I just sent to the organizing committee of the World Internet >> Conference. >> >> Izumi >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Izumi AIZU >> Date: 2014-11-21 10:59 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration >> To: Organizing Committee of World Internet Conference >> >> >> Dear Sir/madam, >> >> I have been enjoying the WIC so much. Thank you for creating and sharing >> this wonderful event. >> >> I agree with the theme - Internet governance for all - or Interconnected >> world shared and governed by all. I appreciate the open dialogue sessions. >> >> Now, to the Wuzhen Declaration, I would like to make following comments >> for the record as an active member of the Civil Society engaged in Internet >> Governance and Information Society issues and make my humble reservation. >> >> First, getting the draft in the middle of the night and the deadline of 8 >> am for any revision is impossible to accommodate. This is against the >> spirit of "shared and governed by all". >> >> Second, there is no mention of "Multistakeholder" process or approach >> which has been well accepted by most, if not all, of stakeholders at ICANN, >> IGF, and other international fora for Internet governance mechanisms. Even >> though there are a lot of room for improvement and reform, simply ignoring >> this principle from the declaration, in my view, will greatly discredit the >> value of our declaration. >> >> Also, there is no reference to WSIS Tunis Agenda, people-centered >> information society, that is a mistake. >> >> No mention of UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights also severely >> undermines the value and effect. >> >> There is too much emphasis on economic and technological potential of the >> Internet, but far less views expressed to social, human and cultural >> dimensions Internet will contribute. >> >> Following points are also observed: >> >> - Consensus is missing from international cooperation >> >> - Internet as an permissionless innovation environment >> >> - Accountable participation as part of cyber security activities >> >> - Advancement of Internet technology should build on global rough >> consensus of the engineering technical community (not politics) >> >> - Internet as an economy of growth and that China should play a bigger >> role to help developing countries from her experience >> >> With these reasons, I like to make my reservation on record. >> >> I also like to mention the statement we co-signed: >> >> "Community Statement Presented at Wuzhen Summit" >> >> >> >> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141120_community_statement_presented_at_wuzhen_summit/ >> >> Thank you for your attention and understanding, I still remain committed >> and connected with your great effort. >> >> Izumi Aizu >> Senior Research Fellow and Professor, >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> >> www.anr.org >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Izumi Aizu << >> >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> Japan >> www.anr.org >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Nov 22 08:29:20 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 07:29:20 -0600 Subject: [governance] JNC perspective on making Internet governance democratic (was Re: URGENT: Last call...) In-Reply-To: <3c72125f6eaa37ee3efdcf34dca67479.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <1486537673.7522.1416390999726.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f29> <4D5FE9B9-60E9-4AE4-BC19-5A72B08E78A6@orange.fr> <146A4EC5-F62D-421E-98FB-E21C3CA21380@difference.com.au> <20141121142258.798a81b9@quill> <546F7AA5.2050000@eff.org> <3c72125f6eaa37ee3efdcf34dca67479.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 5:02 PM, wrote: > > On 21/11/2014 5:22 am, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> JNC certainly has every intention of working hard to convince many of > >> those who are currently unconvinced of the importance and feasibility > >> of making Internet governance democratic. Greetings, Norbert > > > > Whilst such evangelical zeal is - I suppose - admirable, do you really > > think that is going to be productive, rather than just compounding the > > discord you have already caused? As you know full well, none of those > > whom you are addressing accept for a moment that their ideal of > > multi-stakeholder Internet governance is undemocratic, as JNC insists it > > is. > > Simple claims matter little. Lets put the proposition that your (and your > associates') style multi-stakeholderism is democratic (or not) to a simple > practical check. > > Do you *not* advocate a system for dealing with global Internet related > public policies whereby corporates will have a veto on agenda shaping - > meaning on letting an issue go on the agenda or not? > The answer, which you refuse to accept is that in a consensus based multi-equal stakeholder setting, no one has a veto. So the answer is "no" for me, No on on this list, or any CS list that I am aware of has advocated for such a system. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 22 09:22:19 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 08:22:19 -0600 Subject: [bestbits] Nothing to do with internet governance or NMI WAS Re: [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <170887ED-E12C-4CC0-A096-8D953A6BD959@theglobaljournal.net> References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <1772746e261a18240cf44a85af7af3b9.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <170887ED-E12C-4CC0-A096-8D953A6BD959@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 12:19 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Peter, > > I think it would be appropriate to gently refrain subscribers from falling > into personal attack, or in abusively labeling others' opinion or view, > discriminating any one for its citizenship, religion... Calling to refrain > might not lead to more attack, but maybe cool down minds. > Yet in the last few days, you have made these 2 personal attacks: "(At least we know you are no democrat)" "this is insane and dangerous thinking" In reply to an obvious factual assertion. Perhaps you might think about retracting those comments and moderating your tone before you ask that others refrain from falling into personal attacks. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Sat Nov 22 09:51:33 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 15:51:33 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Nothing to do with internet governance or NMI WAS Re: [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <1772746e261a18240cf44a85af7af3b9.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <170887ED-E12C-4CC0-A096-8D953A6BD959@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <52A7F924-918D-4166-865B-2CAF69EAA78B@theglobaljournal.net> McTim, Would it be so? Maybe we can spare the lists? If you wish to talk to me privately about why I came to such conclusions (for both), I am ready to have a conversation with you. JC Le 22 nov. 2014 à 15:22, McTim a écrit : > > > On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 12:19 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Peter, > > I think it would be appropriate to gently refrain subscribers from falling into personal attack, or in abusively labeling others' opinion or view, discriminating any one for its citizenship, religion... Calling to refrain might not lead to more attack, but maybe cool down minds. > > Yet in the last few days, you have made these 2 personal attacks: > > "(At least we know you are no democrat)" > > "this is insane and dangerous thinking" > > In reply to an obvious factual assertion. Perhaps you might think about retracting those comments and moderating your tone before you ask that others refrain from falling into personal attacks. > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Nov 22 14:08:19 2014 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 08:08:19 +1300 Subject: [governance] Moving Foreward into the 2015 Agenda In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428BC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <1772746e261a18240cf44a85af7af3b9.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <170887ED-E12C-4CC0-A096-8D953A6BD959@theglobaljournal.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428BC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 10:17 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > Der all, > > we had a lot of discussions about pros and cons around NMI. This has > helped to clear the air. Now we know better the arguments of the different > groups. Transparency is always good. But we should not forget that the > challenges for 2015 are much broader than NMI. We should come back to a > more forward looking and constructive approach and concrete plans for the > 2015 Internet Governance Agenda, which is fully packed. > > [Sala T: In absolute agreement] > > I repeat my proposal to start a discussion what the priorities and most > urgent projects should be for Civil Society organisations for the global > Internet Governance discussion in the post NetMundial Phase. We have > numerous (old and new) channels where we can raise our voices, either > individually or collectivly (if possible). Here is my list of venues where > we have to do something in 2015. Probably there are some more. Please add > if I have forgotten something: > > [Sala T: My comments are below] > 1. IGF MAG Meeting in early December in Geneva and preparations for the > 10th IGF in Brazil (November 2015); > > [Sala T: I suggest we initiate pointers for our MAG members to raise asap and make a call for comments on the etherpad or mailing list and initiate a thread or continue input into Bill Drake and other's call for input. As a community, we should make a more consolidated stand and submit a proper statement or 3 page submissions on key topics. This can include and involve wider community input and be submitted by our MAG representatives. Priority should be given to this given the short time we have. ] > 2. Conclusions from the Interesessional UNCSTD Meeting (November 2014) and > preparation for the regular May 2015 Meeting of UNCSTD in Geneva (What we > will do with the ongoing mapping process started by the "Correspondence > Group"?) > [Sala T: I suggest we get our members in the UNCSTD meeting who had initiated the mapping process to provide us with a briefing paper of some sort and call for input and comments. Something to be noted is that a major point of contention will be who gets to do the Review which will determine whether the UNCSTD continues to do so or alternatively another Agency. This remains to be seen but is also equally critical as it outomes can be influenced by "who is doing the review". This is why the UN GA Second Committee meeting was very interesting in terms of measuring where countries stand.] > > 3. We Need a strategy how to start our involvement into the WSIS 10+ > process. Should we accept to be excluded from the final discussions and > negotiations, scheduled for December 2015 in New York? > > [Sala T:We should start ASAP. The Advocacy must be at least complete before February and we should have a concerted strategy for rollout both domestic, regional and global.] > 4. Do we have a position with regard to the Brazilian-German initiative in > the UN General Assembly in the right of privacy? Should we publish a > Statement to Support the Establishment of a Special Rapporteur for Privacy > under the HRC? > > [Sala T: Yes we should start crafting a Statement ASAP and call for consensus before submitting] > 5. Do we have anything to say if the 2nd Committee of the UNGA adopts ist > new Resolution on ICT on Development? If the renewal of the IGF Mandate is > not made in December 2014, should we prepare a Statement with our proposals? > > [Sala T: Yes we should start crafting a Statement ASAP for both scenarios renewal and non renewal and only use the relevant one when needed and call for consensus before submitting] > 6. Do we have a position with regard to the Cybersecurity issues discussed > by the Group of Governmental Experts under the 1st Committeee of the UN > General Assembly? Should we make a statement on Confidence Building > Measures (CBMs) for the Cyberspace? > [Sala T: Yes, we should. This should be pushed regionally and also within > the Global space. Personally, I feel that UN involvement in Cyber security > is mainly to do with high level frameworks that really have no teeth and > the real power lies within the 193 countries who have national cyber > security strategies and how they commit to each other in terms of alliance. > What we should certainly push are the Human Rights and Responsibilities and > primarily that those handling national security matters should not corrode > basic civil liberties arbitrarily and preserving human dignity in all that. > 7. What we will do with the invitation by the ITU to have open > consultations before the closed meetings of the ITU Council Working Group > on Internet Governance, as it was decided in Busan? > > [Sala T: We accept the invitation and submit our input intelligently.] > 8. Do we have anything to say with regard to the work of the Global > Commission on Internet Governance (Bildt Commission)? They prepare a report > for January 2016? Any input from our side? > > [Sala T: Never heard of it, grateful if you could share, been behind in catching up on this] > 9. Do we have something to say to the plans of the BRICS countries to > prepare a cybersecurity convention? The next BRICS Summitt Meeting is > planned for July 2015 in Ufa/Russia. Are we here silent? > [Sala T: We can certainly provide input into the processes through our people and organisations in those countries as they make submissions but also we can make one collectively as a Group.] > > 10. How to make use of the Net Mundial follow up? Should we use the NMI to > launch projects which CS sees as important (training, education, human > rights assessment procedures for national and international Internet > related public policy making, access to broadband, net neutrality, privacy > in the Internet of Things etc.). > > [Sala T: Yes, we should but before we do that we should map what collectively our civil society organisation members are doing and positioned globally and prepare a strategy that is global and yet regional. I think the Summer Schools are a good place to start but we can take it up a notch. > 11. Should we contribute more activly to the open processes under ICANN > (IANA stewardship tranisiton and ICANN accountrability) > > [Sala T: I think we need to better manage our resources and leverage our energy into options where we can see feedback. Sometimes, i think that this exercise with the IANA tranision whilst still important is like us being a cat chasing its own tail whilst somebody else holds the flashlight/torch. > 12. Should we have a look into the work of the IETF after their Honolulu > meeting and the discussion on human rights? > > [Sala T: Absolutely] > 13. Do we have any ideas how to move forward with national > multistakeholder Internet Governance IGFs/platforms? > > [Sala T: One of the things we can do better is to release a Statement at every National IGF. Start with soft impact. Where we have footprint, we can provide a standardised powerpoint presentation that can be presented by some of our local members on the ground] > Wolfgang > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Nov 22 14:38:19 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 06:38:19 +1100 Subject: [governance] Fw: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br Message-ID: <254071EE316C4592AB4B95AD4A660A99@Toshiba> -----Original Message----- From: Hartmut Richard Glaser Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 5:35 AM To: Hartmut Glaser Subject: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br To all of you directly and indirectly involved with the lively debate that has been observed within the Internet governance circles surrounding the NETmundial Initiative (NMI), would like to clarify the following: 1)There are two main reasons for CGI.br to embark on the NETmundial Initiative. a) CGI.br is moved by a strong, crystal-clear and well known commitment to the preservation, the promotion and the implementation of the principles and the roadmap that were adopted in São Paulo during the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance - NETmundial. As long as CGI.br is involved in any activity, process or institution related to the global governance of the Internet, there will be a group of 21 board members representatives of the broader Internet community in Brazil, assisted by a deeply committed Secretariat, working for the promotion of the achievements of the NETmundial meeting earlier this year.Instead of watching from a distant perspective the different processes and environments that comprise the complex distributed IG ecosystem, CGI.br members have been actively engaged with a myriad of other stakeholders and the community as a whole in the different spaces within which Internet governance is dealt with. CGI.br is committed to raise a voice whenever there can by any unjustified reversion on the thresholds set by NETmundial for Internet governance, namely: collaboration, openness, transparency, and multistakeholderism by default. b) Brazil is to host the 2015 IGF. CGI.br is closely working with the Brazilian government in order to assure that the 10th edition of the IGF yields all the results that were normatively set by the community in 2014 in different occasions: the renewal of its mandate in the UNGA later this year; the strengthening of its role as the focal point for the community; the assurance of funding sources, and the harmonization of activities of the IGF with the different initiatives that are sprouting (nationally, regionally, and globally) since the Community issued the NETmundial Statement. 2) From its inception, CGI.br has been willing to dialogue and of work together with every single member of the Community who is willing to promote, reflect upon, strengthen, and enhance multistakeholderism. The NMI is one among those efforts and can contribute to those goals by publicizing ideas and connecting people from all over the world using a single Web platform. Anything additional to the development and the maintenance of the platform shall be a result of the Initiative after it is set up. Bearing that in mind, on behalf of all of the members of the Board of CGI.br, we would like to invite all stakeholders to join the effort of building NMI based on the spirit and the aspirations of the community in a collaborative manner. 3) The NETmundial Initiative is in its formation. The whole institutionalization of NMI shall be community-driven. That is why the Transitional Council, as soon as it got a request from the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG), accepted to work together with the CSCG to come up with a solution for defining Civil Society names for the NMI Council by consensus and fully respecting the indications of Civil Society. It is important to say that CGI.br is pretty confident that if any other group of stakeholders approach the Transition Council with similar solutions to strengthen the process, the Council will be willingly open to recognize and implement them as a way of putting the community at the center of the process of shaping the ulterior composition of the NMI Council. Finally, let us reaffirm that CGI.br would never agree with top-down, closed decision-making processes that could possibly undermine its legitimacy as a true bottom-up, multistakeholder body. It is up for the community to transform NMI into something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG in full respects of the principles enshrined in the NETmundial declaration. Best regards, Virgílio Almeida Coordinator of the Board of the CGI.br - Representative nominated by the Federal Government Demi Getschko Member of the Board of CGI.br, nominated as Internet Expert Carlos A. Afonso Member of the Board of CGI.br, representative of the Third Sector Flávio Wagner Member of the Board of CGI.br, representative of the scientific and technological community and Selected member for the MAG/IGF 2015 Eduardo Parajo Member of the Board of CGI.br, representative of the business sector - Internet access and content providers Hartmut Glaser Executive Secretary of the Board of the CGI.br -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Nov 22 15:44:45 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 15:44:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Fw: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <254071EE316C4592AB4B95AD4A660A99@Toshiba> References: <254071EE316C4592AB4B95AD4A660A99@Toshiba> Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > -----Original Message----- From: Hartmut Richard Glaser > Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 5:35 AM > A message from the future? -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr Sat Nov 22 16:44:11 2014 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:44:11 +0000 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <1416633285.59740.YahooMailIosMobile@web28701.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1416692651.71240.YahooMailIosMobile@web28701.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 22 17:34:22 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 14:34:22 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> Message-ID: <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Dear members of CGI.Br and signatories of the appeal for support to the ICANN-WEF global IG Initiative; The Brazilian government and CGI.Br (Brazilian Internet Steering Committee) has a huge amount of political capital, earned from the progressive global stances of Brazil over the years, and an unique pluralist and participatory domestic model for dealing with technical and administrative functions related to the Internet embodied in CGI.Br. It was due to this immense political capital, and the fact that the Brazilian President took such a clear and strong stance against US's surveillance of the whole world, that the world backed Brazil when it decided to to take up leadership to explore a new path for global governance of the Internet. One is of course speaking here of the NetMundial meeting in Sao Paolo. Although the meeting was visibly taken over by ICANN in many ways, including foisting someone who has no civil society record as the civil society leader for the meeting, the world at large stood by Brazil and accepted that it had acted in good faith and has global public interest at its heart. This is despite and apart from the fact that NetMundial outcomes had a very mixed reception among progressive civil society and developing country government. However, when one spends its political capital, it dips, like any other capital. Brazil's ambivalence over the post NetMundial months at global forums on what really was its plan for the kind of institutional transformation that its President first spoke of at the famous UN speech has been noted with considerable disappointment. (While its work at the Human Rights Council to bring privacy related resolutions has been welcomed.) Many people, however, have still been willing to give Brazil the benefit of doubt, given that it has been in the middle of a difficult presidential election. However, its support to a World Economic Forum centred global political initiative for global governance of the Internet would shift the balance, perhaps decisively. This would be extremely unfortunate. Brazil greatly risks losing its position of global trust and leadership among the progressive global actors, and I just hope people directly involved with these unseemly forays understand this long term danger. I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br has now come out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and ICANN (basically doing US's bidding) game. One good proof of this fact is that CGI.Br was sought to be co-opted only when the earlier effort failed in August- September 2014. Why do they expect everyone to be so naïve so as to not get the obvious point; CGI.Br has been pulled in simply to give cover to what is essentially a global governance plan led by the global elite, which is what the WEF represents. Friends from the CGI.Br, have you not read the WEF documents about their vision of global governance of the Internet, which we have briefly quoted in the JNC statement ? Do you feel no need to respond to these issues? What is the basis for you to think that just because they have, belatedly, invited you to join it, they will change their spots, from being what everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave the world the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the basic lessons with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain economic and political elite, and their impatience with democracy, especially at the global level! Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the Brazilian government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a great loss, and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive community has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be taken for granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global governance initiative.* There is still time. Please withdraw from supporting the WEF-ICANN initiative, which is a foray towards very dangerous directions, and could even be historic in its damaging impact on global democracy. Focus instead on gathering a more public interest oriented set of global actors to take forward what was initiated by the Brazilian President's historic speech at the UN last year, however imperfect has the journey been since then. Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work together with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil society offer ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the interests and fate of the people of the world, and of the future generations. Let us deal with this huge responsibility with adequate care and foresight. History would be a harsh judge if we do not, as is my opinion it would be on the Brazilians rooting for an WEF centred global governance system if you do not pull back even now. With sincere regards, parminder > > To all of you directly and indirectly involved with the lively debate > that has been observed within the Internet governance circles > surrounding the NETmundial Initiative (NMI), would like to clarify the > following: > > 1)There are two main reasons for CGI.br to embark on the NETmundial > Initiative. > > a) CGI.br is moved by a strong, crystal-clear and well known commitment > to the preservation, the promotion and the implementation of the > principles and the roadmap that were adopted in São Paulo during the > Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance - > NETmundial. As long as CGI.br is involved in any activity, process or > institution related to the global governance of the Internet, there will > be a group of 21 board members representatives of the broader Internet > community in Brazil, assisted by a deeply committed Secretariat, working > for the promotion of the achievements of the NETmundial meeting earlier > this year.Instead of watching from a distant perspective the different > processes and environments that comprise the complex distributed IG > ecosystem, CGI.br members have been actively engaged with a myriad of > other stakeholders and the community as a whole in the different spaces > within which Internet governance is dealt with. CGI.br is committed to > raise a voice whenever there can by any unjustified reversion on the > thresholds set by NETmundial for Internet governance, namely: > collaboration, openness, transparency, and multistakeholderism by default. > > b) Brazil is to host the 2015 IGF. CGI.br is closely working with the > Brazilian government in order to assure that the 10th edition of the IGF > yields all the results that were normatively set by the community in > 2014 in different occasions: the renewal of its mandate in the UNGA > later this year; the strengthening of its role as the focal point for > the community; the assurance of funding sources, and the harmonization > of activities of the IGF with the different initiatives that are > sprouting (nationally, regionally, and globally) since the Community > issued the NETmundial Statement. > > 2) From its inception, CGI.br has been willing to dialogue and of work > together with every single member of the Community who is willing to > promote, reflect upon, strengthen, and enhance multistakeholderism. The > NMI is one among those efforts and can contribute to those goals by > publicizing ideas and connecting people from all over the world using a > single Web platform. Anything additional to the development and the > maintenance of the platform shall be a result of the Initiative after it > is set up. Bearing that in mind, on behalf of all of the members of the > Board of CGI.br, we would like to invite all stakeholders to join the > effort of building NMI based on the spirit and the aspirations of the > community in a collaborative manner. > > 3) The NETmundial Initiative is in its formation. The whole > institutionalization of NMI shall be community-driven. That is why the > Transitional Council, as soon as it got a request from the Civil Society > Coordination Group (CSCG), accepted to work together with the CSCG to > come up with a solution for defining Civil Society names for the NMI > Council by consensus and fully respecting the indications of Civil > Society. It is important to say that CGI.br is pretty confident that if > any other group of stakeholders approach the Transition Council with > similar solutions to strengthen the process, the Council will be > willingly open to recognize and implement them as a way of putting the > community at the center of the process of shaping the ulterior > composition of the NMI Council. > > Finally, let us reaffirm that CGI.br would never agree with top-down, > closed decision-making processes that could possibly undermine its > legitimacy as a true bottom-up, multistakeholder body. It is up for the > community to transform NMI into something that is concrete and useful > for the advancement of IG in full respects of the principles enshrined > in the NETmundial declaration. > > Best regards, > > Virgílio Almeida > Coordinator of the Board of the CGI.br - Representative nominated by the > Federal Government > > Demi Getschko > Member of the Board of CGI.br, nominated as Internet Expert > > Carlos A. Afonso > Member of the Board of CGI.br, representative of the Third Sector > > Flávio Wagner > Member of the Board of CGI.br, representative of the scientific and > technological community and Selected member for the MAG/IGF 2015 > > Eduardo Parajo > Member of the Board of CGI.br, representative of the business sector - > Internet access and content providers > > Hartmut Glaser > Executive Secretary of the Board of the CGI.br > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 22 18:30:14 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 05:00:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: > > I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br has now come > out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and ICANN (basically > doing US's bidding) game. Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. > everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave the world > the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the basic lessons > with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain economic and > political elite, and their impatience with democracy, especially at the > global level! > Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that excludes stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic backgrounds that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but merely pure demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain far, far away from the civil society mainstream thinking on this subject. > Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the Brazilian > government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a great loss, > and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive community > has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be taken for I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global progressive community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you continue to push, and that the majority of the community apparently doesn't share. > granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out > publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global governance > initiative.* > Your support, and those of the small splinter group of extremists that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us all from such support. > Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work together > with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil society offer > ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the interests > and fate of the people of the world, and of the future generations. Let That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of inclusiveness. Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large. You don't and have never represented it all. --srs -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Nov 22 18:46:43 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:46:43 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> Dear people, In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as president. As usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with massive acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in loco the thousands of people cheering Lula. From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social movements of course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a sort of scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, NGOs and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among them) -- our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, and there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took the reigns of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it would be the other way around. I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. fraternal regards --c.a. (*) See, for example, this report: http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate-globalisation On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br has now come >> out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and ICANN (basically >> doing US's bidding) game. > > Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. > > >> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave the world >> the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the basic lessons >> with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain economic and >> political elite, and their impatience with democracy, especially at the >> global level! >> > > Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. > > Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that excludes stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic backgrounds that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but merely pure demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain far, far away from the civil society mainstream thinking on this subject. > >> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the Brazilian >> government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a great loss, >> and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive community >> has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be taken for > > I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global progressive community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you continue to push, and that the majority of the community apparently doesn't share. > >> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out >> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global governance >> initiative.* >> > > Your support, and those of the small splinter group of extremists that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us all from such support. > >> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work together >> with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil society offer >> ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the interests >> and fate of the people of the world, and of the future generations. Let > > That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of inclusiveness. Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large. You don't and have never represented it all. > > --srs > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Sat Nov 22 20:23:01 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 02:23:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi all, Remember WSIS. Brazil was the driving force in putting up the group of like minded countries. When final negotiation arrived, Brazil leadership evaporated. One could presume that they did not have the capacity to resist strong US arm twisting. NetMundial was a similar scenario. The high level committee members never got any contact from the brazilian chair. ICANN had already taken over. This WEF/ICANN nebulous gobbledygook smacks of another railroading to capture some opponents to the US business predator strategy. Let's see what happens to Brazil. . Louis - - - On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 11:34 PM, wrote: > > Dear members of CGI.Br and signatories of the appeal for support to the > ICANN-WEF global IG Initiative; > [snip] > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 22 22:49:47 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:49:47 -0600 Subject: [bestbits] Nothing to do with internet governance or NMI WAS Re: [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <52A7F924-918D-4166-865B-2CAF69EAA78B@theglobaljournal.net> References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <1772746e261a18240cf44a85af7af3b9.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <170887ED-E12C-4CC0-A096-8D953A6BD959@theglobaljournal.net> <52A7F924-918D-4166-865B-2CAF69EAA78B@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: I have no desire to engage in an offlist conversation, as what is at stake is too important to take offlist. If Members of the IGC are unable to assert simple facts in evidence along the lines of "it is Western democracies that have allowed the double Dutch-Irish sandwich", without being called, dangerous, insane and undemocratic then we have no basis upon which to continue to try and keep the IGC alive. I would be happy to accept your apology and the retraction of your ad hominem attack onlist. On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > McTim, > > Would it be so? Maybe we can spare the lists? > > If you wish to talk to me privately about why I came to such conclusions > (for both), I am ready to have a conversation with you. > > JC > > > > Le 22 nov. 2014 à 15:22, McTim a écrit : > > > > On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 12:19 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global > Journal wrote: > >> Peter, >> >> I think it would be appropriate to gently refrain subscribers from >> falling into personal attack, or in abusively labeling others' opinion or >> view, discriminating any one for its citizenship, religion... Calling to >> refrain might not lead to more attack, but maybe cool down minds. >> > > Yet in the last few days, you have made these 2 personal attacks: > > "(At least we know you are no democrat)" > > "this is insane and dangerous thinking" > > In reply to an obvious factual assertion. Perhaps you might think about > retracting those comments and moderating your tone before you ask that > others refrain from falling into personal attacks. > > > -- > 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 > > > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Sun Nov 23 04:09:26 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 10:09:26 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Nothing to do with internet governance or NMI WAS Re: [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <1772746e261a18240cf44a85af7af3b9.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <170887ED-E12C-4CC0-A096-8D953A6BD959@theglobaljournal.net> <52A7F924-918D-4166-865B-2CAF69EAA78B@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <9F734EF9-FD60-4E95-B62F-6AB0C9FB9667@theglobaljournal.net> I agree with you that Democracy is an important issue. I keep thinking that your repeated attacks against democracy, are totally dangerous and toxic. (nothing ad hominem, but clearly challenging your opinion and the logic of your stance). You condemn democracy when you should point at the money (and people behind it) that is corrupting democracy. Democracy (as a political system) is not designed to produce corruption. Corruption has been a long lasting universal phenomena, and democracy has been one of the best regime to reduce it. Whether one belongs to a registered or non registered mafia, able to pay lawyers, advisors to twist the democratic game, that person is responsible and should be brought to justice (if under a democratic regime with an independent judicial system). The only people confusing responsibilities (Democracy v.s the authors of these liabilities) are the ones I met over the years whom would justify and legitimate non progressive and no democratic regimes. More over you have produced no evidence that democracy - as a set of principles - was "responsible" for what is rightfully condemnable. Where is the democratic principle that legitimize lobbying as the twisting tool of public interest? You can look into a specific government, and tell us that this or that minister acted wrongfully and possibly criminally, and should be condemned. If he survives the justice of his country, his fellow countrymen can use their vote to outplay him - if in a democracy. You confuse everyone by mixing the philosophical level and the criminal damages. Corruption doesn't belong to a specific political regime. You can find it in any country, under any kind of regime. The fact the the US has made find a way to legitimize political corruption thanks to the money they pour in lobbying firms, still does not make "democracy" is "responsible" for that. That school of thoughts has invade some places in Europe like Brussels. Thanks for the gift. That narrative of your belongs to what is usually labelled as "populist narrative". The US, that should be exemplary, has recently allowed corporations to fund with no limit candidates to the presidential race. That is a toxic decision, spinning this great country a little further away from a true democratic regime. We all know that democracy is a constant fight. Democracy bashing is condemnable as well, as it ruins the fundaments and principles that need to be constantly defended from internal or external attacks. And I have serious difficulty to deal with any "democratic basher". Some good samaritan are know selling an idea of going beyond democracy which IMO is a joke , and another way to simply kill democracy. They wish to 'improve' democracy, by touching as some of the fundamental principles. There is no beyond democratic principles. The question is how well understood, implemented, and applied principles in a democratic context are they. That can be improved, I agree. So if you keep demonstrating serious willingness to shoot at Democracy (as a set of principles) from within - you are not living in China, Barhain or Uganda right? - , don't expect anyone to apologize for pointing a finger at this anti-democratic behavior. Of course you are free to sincerely believe that you are a democrat. Like all the ones that believe that an equal footing decision making process including states, corporations, groupings of any sort, are democrats. IMO, this is a serious threat to democracy. Please, clarify your thoughts and language. The conversation will become more pleasant. And I would be happy to continue exchanging views. JC Le 23 nov. 2014 à 04:49, McTim a écrit : > I have no desire to engage in an offlist conversation, as what is at stake is too important to take offlist. If Members of the IGC are unable to assert simple facts in evidence along the lines of "it is Western democracies that have allowed the double Dutch-Irish sandwich", without being called, dangerous, insane and undemocratic then we have no basis upon which to continue to try and keep the IGC alive. > > I would be happy to accept your apology and the retraction of your ad hominem attack onlist. > > On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > McTim, > > Would it be so? Maybe we can spare the lists? > > If you wish to talk to me privately about why I came to such conclusions (for both), I am ready to have a conversation with you. > > JC > > > > Le 22 nov. 2014 à 15:22, McTim a écrit : > >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 12:19 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: >> Peter, >> >> I think it would be appropriate to gently refrain subscribers from falling into personal attack, or in abusively labeling others' opinion or view, discriminating any one for its citizenship, religion... Calling to refrain might not lead to more attack, but maybe cool down minds. >> >> Yet in the last few days, you have made these 2 personal attacks: >> >> "(At least we know you are no democrat)" >> >> "this is insane and dangerous thinking" >> >> In reply to an obvious factual assertion. Perhaps you might think about retracting those comments and moderating your tone before you ask that others refrain from falling into personal attacks. >> >> >> -- >> 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 > > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Sun Nov 23 04:17:56 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 10:17:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> Carlos, Following what Parminder and Louis wrote, and I am in full agreement with both, but I think every one here makes a difference between Lula accepting very rightfully to come to express his views at Davos, and Lula joining an initiative by a Californian non profit making profit and a Swiss non profit making even more profit. Therefore, I would bet that everyone makes a clear difference between partying with an unclear setting by WEF/ICANN , and its Brazilian companion of misfortune, and an invitation to talk to the global leaders, thanks to a nice room service in Davos. That being said, I thank Wolfgang for reminding us that NMI is taking our eyes away from more serious concerns - an evidence that this initiative might be a great deal of waste for civil society asking itself questions (not about the contents) but about the seats. JC Le 23 nov. 2014 à 00:46, Carlos Afonso a écrit : > Dear people, > > In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as president. As usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with massive acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in loco the thousands of people cheering Lula. > > From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social movements of course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a sort of scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, NGOs and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among them) -- our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, and there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took the reigns of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it would be the other way around. > > I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > (*) See, for example, this report: > http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate-globalisation > > On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> >>> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br has now come >>> out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and ICANN (basically >>> doing US's bidding) game. >> >> Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. >> >> >>> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave the world >>> the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the basic lessons >>> with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain economic and >>> political elite, and their impatience with democracy, especially at the >>> global level! >>> >> >> Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. >> >> Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that excludes stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic backgrounds that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but merely pure demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain far, far away from the civil society mainstream thinking on this subject. >> >>> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the Brazilian >>> government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a great loss, >>> and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive community >>> has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be taken for >> >> I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global progressive community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you continue to push, and that the majority of the community apparently doesn't share. >> >>> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out >>> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global governance >>> initiative.* >>> >> >> Your support, and those of the small splinter group of extremists that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us all from such support. >> >>> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work together >>> with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil society offer >>> ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the interests >>> and fate of the people of the world, and of the future generations. Let >> >> That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of inclusiveness. Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large. You don't and have never represented it all. >> >> --srs >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Sun Nov 23 04:26:44 2014 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 11:26:44 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Nothing to do with internet governance or NMI WAS Re: [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <9F734EF9-FD60-4E95-B62F-6AB0C9FB9667@theglobaljournal.net> References: <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <1772746e261a18240cf44a85af7af3b9.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <170887ED-E12C-4CC0-A096-8D953A6BD959@theglobaljournal.net> <52A7F924-918D-4166-865B-2CAF69EAA78B@theglobaljournal.net> <9F734EF9-FD60-4E95-B62F-6AB0C9FB9667@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <20141123092644.GA32430@tarvainen.info> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:09:26AM +0100, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal (jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net) wrote: [addressing McTim] > I agree with you that Democracy is an important issue. I keep > thinking that your repeated attacks against democracy, are totally > dangerous and toxic. Curiously, I never thought McTim was attacking democracy. Rather the opposite: when he says something was a result of democracy, it isn't blaming democracy but implying that said something must be good, by definition, because it was a result of democracy. But of course I may misunderstand as well (wouldn't be the first time). > you have produced no evidence that democracy - as a set of > principles - was "responsible" for what is rightfully condemnable. I suspect the real disagreement lies there, what is and what isn't "rightfully condemnamble". -- Tapani Tarvainen -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Nov 23 05:15:51 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 08:15:51 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5471B3D7.3040108@cafonso.ca> Grande Louis, yes, nobody is perfect :) At the end of WSIS Brazilian positions were tainted by the government's effort to elect the Brazilian candidate to the ITU secretary general post. This resulted in the Brazilian involvement with the unfortunate "like-minded countries" idea. But please remember that we are talking about CGI.br, not the Brazilian government. Regarding the complaint mentioning difficulties in contacting NETmundial's BR chair, this is the first time I read such a thing. As a former member of NETmundial's executive committee, I would appreciate more specific information on this. Finally, at least JNC does not think that "WEF/ICANN" is a "nebulous gobbledygook", as they claim to know perfectly well that this a devilish concoction for the "corporate takeover of the Internet". fraternal regards --c.a. On 11/22/14 23:23, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Hi all, > > Remember WSIS. Brazil was the driving force in putting up the group of > like minded countries. When final negotiation arrived, Brazil leadership > evaporated. One could presume that they did not have the capacity to > resist strong US arm twisting. > > NetMundial was a similar scenario. The high level committee members > never got any contact from the brazilian chair. ICANN had already taken > over. > > This WEF/ICANN nebulous gobbledygook smacks of another railroading to > capture some opponents to the US business predator strategy. Let's see > what happens to Brazil. > . > Louis > - - - > > On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 11:34 PM, > wrote: > > > Dear members of CGI.Br and signatories of the appeal for support to the > ICANN-WEF global IG Initiative; > [snip] > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Nov 23 05:36:22 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 08:36:22 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <5471B8A6.2070304@cafonso.ca> I recalled Lula's visit to WEF for the obvious reason that the arguments used by some CS sectors against his travel to Davos at the time were exactly the same as JNC's today. To complete the horror, in 2010 WEF honored Lula with the Global Statesman award. I agree with your last phrase -- some of CS are so sanguine about the simple quotation of the "WEF" word that they are disregarding the more strategic questions. Is this initiative going to be a waste of time? Maybe. We (CG) are and will be trying hard for it to succeed as a pluralist space. fraternal regards --c.a. On 11/23/14 07:17, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Carlos, > > Following what Parminder and Louis wrote, and I am in full agreement > with both, but I think every one here makes a difference between Lula > accepting very rightfully to come to express his views at Davos, and > Lula joining an initiative by a Californian non profit making profit and > a Swiss non profit making even more profit. Therefore, I would bet that > everyone makes a clear difference between partying with an unclear > setting by WEF/ICANN , and its Brazilian companion of misfortune, and an > invitation to talk to the global leaders, thanks to a nice room service > in Davos. > > That being said, I thank Wolfgang for reminding us that NMI is taking > our eyes away from more serious concerns - an evidence that this > initiative might be a great deal of waste for civil society asking > itself questions (not about the contents) but about the seats. > > JC > > > > > Le 23 nov. 2014 à 00:46, Carlos Afonso a écrit : > >> Dear people, >> >> In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as president. >> As usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with >> massive acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in >> loco the thousands of people cheering Lula. >> >> From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of >> corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social movements of >> course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a sort >> of scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, >> NGOs and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among >> them) -- our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, and >> there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took >> the reigns of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it would >> be the other way around. >> >> I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of >> arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different >> (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> (*) See, for example, this report: >> http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate-globalisation >> >> On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>> >>>> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br has now >>>> come >>>> out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and ICANN >>>> (basically >>>> doing US's bidding) game. >>> >>> Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. >>> >>> >>>> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave the world >>>> the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the basic lessons >>>> with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain >>>> economic and >>>> political elite, and their impatience with democracy, especially at the >>>> global level! >>>> >>> >>> Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. >>> >>> Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that excludes >>> stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic backgrounds >>> that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but merely pure >>> demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain far, far away >>> from the civil society mainstream thinking on this subject. >>> >>>> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the Brazilian >>>> government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a great >>>> loss, >>>> and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive community >>>> has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be taken for >>> >>> I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global progressive >>> community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you continue to >>> push, and that the majority of the community apparently doesn't share. >>> >>>> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out >>>> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global governance >>>> initiative.* >>>> >>> >>> Your support, and those of the small splinter group of extremists >>> that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us all from >>> such support. >>> >>>> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work together >>>> with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil society offer >>>> ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the interests >>>> and fate of the people of the world, and of the future generations. Let >>> >>> That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of inclusiveness. >>> Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large. You don't and >>> have never represented it all. >>> >>> --srs >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Sun Nov 23 05:44:26 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 11:44:26 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Nothing to do with internet governance or NMI WAS Re: [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <20141123092644.GA32430@tarvainen.info> References: <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <1772746e261a18240cf44a85af7af3b9.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <170887ED-E12C-4CC0-A096-8D953A6BD959@theglobaljournal.net> <52A7F924-918D-4166-865B-2CAF69EAA78B@theglobaljournal.net> <9F734EF9-FD60-4E95-B62F-6AB0C9FB9667@theglobaljournal.net> <20141123092644.GA32430@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <1995B8F9-F49C-4A82-81FB-8BBD342800B9@theglobaljournal.net> Thanks Tapani, I might misunderstand as well. Who knows? So going back to the start of the exchange in chronology for clarity 1_MG posted a link about CEO incomes against volume of tax avoidance of their companies 2_McTim replied: "Do you not understand that the system of representative democracy gave us the current regime of tax avoidance being legal?" (JC's now: tax avoidance is illegal, the US treasurer is the first one to prove it everyday when going after Switzerland and other wrongdoers - very right in my view even though in a very aggressive fashion.... There is no such law, edited by a representative democracy saying that tax avoidance is legal. There are greedy people trying to find legal vacuums to enter the fray. All members of the G20 convened at the Saint Petersburg's meeting were in agreement to chase companies, many of them from the digital sector, that created a culture and practice of tax avoidance, and failed to contribute to local taxpayers efforts) 3_JC's comment: "...Greedy corps looking for more dividends is the first reason, and they pay their fiscal advisor to go get these dirty money (avoidance of tax). The absence of transnational fiscal regulation and convergence is (also) responsible" 4_McTim's comment: "and representative democracy gave us both of the above. Just sayin'" ... >From what I read here, McTim is rather clear: representative democracy is responsible for ("gave us")... Following the reasoning : if representative democracy is responsible, then the solution is simple: change to another system. You do not wish to change it, then we are stuck with all of those problems. If the 'gave us' does not mean "responsible for' then why to push representative democracy at the forefront, instead of simply saying that CEOs "gave us" tax avoidance with the help of a few well paid friends. There is some plain clear logic at work here . JC Le 23 nov. 2014 à 10:26, Tapani Tarvainen a écrit : > On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:09:26AM +0100, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal (jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net) wrote: > > [addressing McTim] > >> I agree with you that Democracy is an important issue. I keep >> thinking that your repeated attacks against democracy, are totally >> dangerous and toxic. > > Curiously, I never thought McTim was attacking democracy. > Rather the opposite: when he says something was a result > of democracy, it isn't blaming democracy but implying > that said something must be good, by definition, because it > was a result of democracy. > > But of course I may misunderstand as well (wouldn't > be the first time). > >> you have produced no evidence that democracy - as a set of >> principles - was "responsible" for what is rightfully condemnable. > > I suspect the real disagreement lies there, what is and what > isn't "rightfully condemnamble". > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Nov 23 05:51:40 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 08:51:40 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <5471BC3C.9010602@cafonso.ca> BTW, I recall your article in that US-based blog, Huffington Post, denouncing NETmundial (not the initiative, but the meeting), just before the start of the event, as a complot by USA and the corporate folks to complete their "domination over the Internet": http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanchristophe-nothias/for-more-internet-and-mor_b_5175698.html I quote: "Still the Netmundial true co-organizers, ICANN and CGI.br still have had to make choices, even though the cost for traveling to Brazil already provided a natural selection in terms of attendance. To date, corporate delegates are to occupy more than 40 percent of the room. So here we are, after six months of intense behind-closed-doors preparation, ready to attend Netmundial, a conference that claims to be "multistakeholder," but which is really about launching the next stage of US global multistakeholder domination over the Internet, thanks to an ICANN++." Do you still think this is a true rendering of the NETmundia event? frt rgds --c.a. On 11/23/14 07:17, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Carlos, > > Following what Parminder and Louis wrote, and I am in full agreement > with both, but I think every one here makes a difference between Lula > accepting very rightfully to come to express his views at Davos, and > Lula joining an initiative by a Californian non profit making profit and > a Swiss non profit making even more profit. Therefore, I would bet that > everyone makes a clear difference between partying with an unclear > setting by WEF/ICANN , and its Brazilian companion of misfortune, and an > invitation to talk to the global leaders, thanks to a nice room service > in Davos. > > That being said, I thank Wolfgang for reminding us that NMI is taking > our eyes away from more serious concerns - an evidence that this > initiative might be a great deal of waste for civil society asking > itself questions (not about the contents) but about the seats. > > JC > > > > > Le 23 nov. 2014 à 00:46, Carlos Afonso a écrit : > >> Dear people, >> >> In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as president. >> As usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with >> massive acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in >> loco the thousands of people cheering Lula. >> >> From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of >> corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social movements of >> course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a sort >> of scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, >> NGOs and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among >> them) -- our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, and >> there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took >> the reigns of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it would >> be the other way around. >> >> I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of >> arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different >> (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> (*) See, for example, this report: >> http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate-globalisation >> >> On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>> >>>> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br has now >>>> come >>>> out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and ICANN >>>> (basically >>>> doing US's bidding) game. >>> >>> Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. >>> >>> >>>> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave the world >>>> the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the basic lessons >>>> with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain >>>> economic and >>>> political elite, and their impatience with democracy, especially at the >>>> global level! >>>> >>> >>> Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. >>> >>> Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that excludes >>> stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic backgrounds >>> that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but merely pure >>> demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain far, far away >>> from the civil society mainstream thinking on this subject. >>> >>>> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the Brazilian >>>> government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a great >>>> loss, >>>> and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive community >>>> has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be taken for >>> >>> I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global progressive >>> community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you continue to >>> push, and that the majority of the community apparently doesn't share. >>> >>>> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out >>>> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global governance >>>> initiative.* >>>> >>> >>> Your support, and those of the small splinter group of extremists >>> that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us all from >>> such support. >>> >>>> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work together >>>> with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil society offer >>>> ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the interests >>>> and fate of the people of the world, and of the future generations. Let >>> >>> That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of inclusiveness. >>> Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large. You don't and >>> have never represented it all. >>> >>> --srs >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Nov 23 06:33:48 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 03:33:48 -0800 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Ten Reasons Why Social Justice Matters for Internet Governance Message-ID: <0ae201d00711$59fb8a40$0df29ec0$@gmail.com> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/11/22/ten-reasons-why-social-justice-matt ers-for-internet-governance/ http://t.co/M2T1VQmw8p 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sun Nov 23 06:59:11 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 03:59:11 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <5471B8A6.2070304@cafonso.ca> References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> <5471B8A6.2070304@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <0aed01d00714$e56890c0$b039b240$@gmail.com> A "pluralist space" for what exactly? The lack of any clear answer to that question is what makes a lot of people including myself very uneasy. Clearly the NMI folks are very concerned to get buy in/legitimation from civil society to the point of making apparent concessions in order to obtain this. Precisely what is civil society gaining in return for according this legitimacy? And contrary to what many have suggested this is very much a zero sum game. Once accorded, it will be extremely hard if not impossible to withdraw the legitimacy which has been granted. M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos Afonso Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 2:36 AM To: Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: Parminder Singh; Hartmut Richard Glaser; Best Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br I recalled Lula's visit to WEF for the obvious reason that the arguments used by some CS sectors against his travel to Davos at the time were exactly the same as JNC's today. To complete the horror, in 2010 WEF honored Lula with the Global Statesman award. I agree with your last phrase -- some of CS are so sanguine about the simple quotation of the "WEF" word that they are disregarding the more strategic questions. Is this initiative going to be a waste of time? Maybe. We (CG) are and will be trying hard for it to succeed as a pluralist space. fraternal regards --c.a. On 11/23/14 07:17, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Carlos, > > Following what Parminder and Louis wrote, and I am in full agreement > with both, but I think every one here makes a difference between Lula > accepting very rightfully to come to express his views at Davos, and > Lula joining an initiative by a Californian non profit making profit > and a Swiss non profit making even more profit. Therefore, I would bet > that everyone makes a clear difference between partying with an > unclear setting by WEF/ICANN , and its Brazilian companion of > misfortune, and an invitation to talk to the global leaders, thanks to > a nice room service in Davos. > > That being said, I thank Wolfgang for reminding us that NMI is taking > our eyes away from more serious concerns - an evidence that this > initiative might be a great deal of waste for civil society asking > itself questions (not about the contents) but about the seats. > > JC > > > > > Le 23 nov. 2014 à 00:46, Carlos Afonso a écrit : > >> Dear people, >> >> In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as president. >> As usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with >> massive acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in >> loco the thousands of people cheering Lula. >> >> From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of >> corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social movements of >> course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a sort >> of scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, >> NGOs and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among >> them) -- our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, >> and there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF >> took the reigns of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it >> would be the other way around. >> >> I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of >> arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different >> (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> (*) See, for example, this report: >> http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate >> -globalisation >> >> On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>> >>>> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br has >>>> now come out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and >>>> ICANN (basically doing US's bidding) game. >>> >>> Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. >>> >>> >>>> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave the >>>> world the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the >>>> basic lessons with regard to the designs of global domination by a >>>> certain economic and political elite, and their impatience with >>>> democracy, especially at the global level! >>>> >>> >>> Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. >>> >>> Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that >>> excludes stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic >>> backgrounds that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but >>> merely pure demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain >>> far, far away from the civil society mainstream thinking on this subject. >>> >>>> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the >>>> Brazilian government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be >>>> such a great loss, and very much hope were not the case. *The >>>> global progressive community has consistently supported you, but >>>> this support cannot be taken for >>> >>> I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global progressive >>> community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you continue to >>> push, and that the majority of the community apparently doesn't share. >>> >>>> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out >>>> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global governance >>>> initiative.* >>>> >>> >>> Your support, and those of the small splinter group of extremists >>> that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us all from >>> such support. >>> >>>> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work >>>> together with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil >>>> society offer ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands >>>> today the interests and fate of the people of the world, and of >>>> the future generations. Let >>> >>> That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of inclusiveness. >>> Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large. You don't and >>> have never represented it all. >>> >>> --srs >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Sun Nov 23 07:08:00 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 13:08:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5471CE20.2000500@wzb.eu> Am 23.11.14 02:23, schrieb Louis Pouzin (well): > Hi all, > NetMundial was a similar scenario. The high level committee members > never got any contact from the brazilian chair. ICANN had already taken > over. Someone asked me to comment on this since I also was a member of the High Level Committee. So, I comment. According to my memory (and email archive) what Louis says is not true. The Executive Committee sent a draft for the HLMC to comment on. Some HLMC members commented, others didn't but complained instead about the lack of process. There was a lack of process, true, but this does not mean that ICANN had taken over. On the contrary, there was plenty of opportunity for us to influence and shape both the process and the draft documents. Lack of process is not always a bad thing. In the case of NM it provided significant opportunities for CS to assume responsibility and contribute to the draft documents. Adam but also Marilia were among the people who contributed a lot to the drafts. The 'ICANN dominates the world' kind of narrative does not do justice to the efforts of CS people in this process. jeanette > > This WEF/ICANN nebulous gobbledygook smacks of another railroading to > capture some opponents to the US business predator strategy. Let's see > what happens to Brazil. > . > Louis > - - - > > On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 11:34 PM, > wrote: > > > Dear members of CGI.Br and signatories of the appeal for support to the > ICANN-WEF global IG Initiative; > [snip] > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 23 07:24:23 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 13:24:23 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <5471BC3C.9010602@cafonso.ca> References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> <5471BC3C.9010602@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <81BABADA-F3F5-4777-88DE-C4967DE72460@theglobaljournal.net> Thanks for the reminder Carlos. One quick snap before going at your question. "Complot" is not part of my thinking, nor narrative. I do not see the world through any complot. Do you? So let's keep our head cool on this type of characterization. We can all see interests in motion. To your question: The IG asymmetry dates long before the mass surveillance revelations. But since then, we have seen the Montevideo statement, the ONE_NET initiative, the speech by Dilma Rousseff at the UN SG in NY, the NET MUNDIAL project launching , then the announcement of the IANA transition (under US conditions), the Marco civil and a statement by participants of NetMundial, and now we see an ICANN/WEF attempt to use the NetMundial statement as some kind of keystone to a re-thinking of Internet governance oriented through concrete projects (some money to be given away? any one having an idea of how to get part of that "funding"?)... And what else do you want me to say. I do no see any complot, nor am I sanguine about the WEF trying to be a neutral platform of engagement between their corporate membership and the IG clerics and masters. During the GIP, the WEF, through Richard Sammans' voice advocated for a form of dialogue, but he also clearly stated "one" vision of doing it with a major bias, as no requirement for any additional regulation to do that fresh re-thinking of IG. You know JNC is a bit stubborn about "public internet policies" and who should be interested primarily in this, and why JNC feels so bad about equating decision making for undifferentiated stakeholders. Nothing hysteric, even I do regret that the dialogue within CS takes us sometime in excessive language from all sides. So far, Virgilio attitude, as CGIbr main representative - and I agree with you that he is not representative of the Brazilian government in NMI - seems to be : "we will work with the existing institutions, and we don't need additional ones." At least this is what he states in his video. It is a bit different from saying "no additional regulations for IG". But is it not regrettable that he closes the door to new entities? One could be a complete new IGF? or a new entity for ICANN to become a true transnational body not under a US jurisdiction. I am concerned with Fadi not staying much longer as chair of ICANN, as we can all see tensions within the US. I am saying that because I am not sure that so far all of the different efforts (1Net, NetMundial...) has provided a critical basis for rebalancing the asymmetry we leave in. So he might be seen as failing both camps in the US. Or maybe I missed something here. Let me know if you have some evidence of that rebalancing. Where I am so uncomfortable is to have the persisting view that CS because lacking unity, and lacking trust in itself is failing to defend public interest in Internet Public Policy related issues. Kind regards JC PS/ I'll tell more about all that in my upcoming HuffPost. Le 23 nov. 2014 à 11:51, Carlos Afonso a écrit : > BTW, I recall your article in that US-based blog, Huffington Post, denouncing NETmundial (not the initiative, but the meeting), just before the start of the event, as a complot by USA and the corporate folks to complete their "domination over the Internet": > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanchristophe-nothias/for-more-internet-and-mor_b_5175698.html > > I quote: "Still the Netmundial true co-organizers, ICANN and CGI.br still have had to make choices, even though the cost for traveling to Brazil already provided a natural selection in terms of attendance. To date, corporate delegates are to occupy more than 40 percent of the room. So here we are, after six months of intense behind-closed-doors preparation, ready to attend Netmundial, a conference that claims to be "multistakeholder," but which is really about launching the next stage of US global multistakeholder domination over the Internet, thanks to an ICANN++." > > Do you still think this is a true rendering of the NETmundia event? > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 11/23/14 07:17, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: >> Carlos, >> >> Following what Parminder and Louis wrote, and I am in full agreement >> with both, but I think every one here makes a difference between Lula >> accepting very rightfully to come to express his views at Davos, and >> Lula joining an initiative by a Californian non profit making profit and >> a Swiss non profit making even more profit. Therefore, I would bet that >> everyone makes a clear difference between partying with an unclear >> setting by WEF/ICANN , and its Brazilian companion of misfortune, and an >> invitation to talk to the global leaders, thanks to a nice room service >> in Davos. >> >> That being said, I thank Wolfgang for reminding us that NMI is taking >> our eyes away from more serious concerns - an evidence that this >> initiative might be a great deal of waste for civil society asking >> itself questions (not about the contents) but about the seats. >> >> JC >> >> >> >> >> Le 23 nov. 2014 à 00:46, Carlos Afonso a écrit : >> >>> Dear people, >>> >>> In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as president. >>> As usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with >>> massive acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in >>> loco the thousands of people cheering Lula. >>> >>> From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of >>> corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social movements of >>> course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a sort >>> of scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, >>> NGOs and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among >>> them) -- our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, and >>> there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took >>> the reigns of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it would >>> be the other way around. >>> >>> I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of >>> arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different >>> (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. >>> >>> fraternal regards >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> (*) See, for example, this report: >>> http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate-globalisation >>> >>> On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br has now >>>>> come >>>>> out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and ICANN >>>>> (basically >>>>> doing US's bidding) game. >>>> >>>> Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. >>>> >>>> >>>>> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave the world >>>>> the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the basic lessons >>>>> with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain >>>>> economic and >>>>> political elite, and their impatience with democracy, especially at the >>>>> global level! >>>>> >>>> >>>> Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. >>>> >>>> Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that excludes >>>> stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic backgrounds >>>> that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but merely pure >>>> demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain far, far away >>>> from the civil society mainstream thinking on this subject. >>>> >>>>> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the Brazilian >>>>> government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a great >>>>> loss, >>>>> and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive community >>>>> has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be taken for >>>> >>>> I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global progressive >>>> community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you continue to >>>> push, and that the majority of the community apparently doesn't share. >>>> >>>>> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out >>>>> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global governance >>>>> initiative.* >>>>> >>>> >>>> Your support, and those of the small splinter group of extremists >>>> that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us all from >>>> such support. >>>> >>>>> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work together >>>>> with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil society offer >>>>> ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the interests >>>>> and fate of the people of the world, and of the future generations. Let >>>> >>>> That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of inclusiveness. >>>> Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large. You don't and >>>> have never represented it all. >>>> >>>> --srs >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sun Nov 23 07:31:19 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 08:31:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] More Big Brother? Message-ID: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30166477 "A law forcing firms to hand details to police identifying who was using a computer or mobile phone at a given time is to be outlined by Theresa May. The home secretary said the measure would improve national security." Deirdre -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Nov 23 07:32:10 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 21:32:10 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <5471CE20.2000500@wzb.eu> References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <5471CE20.2000500@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <59641E53-42DC-4E67-8CFB-8D401C6FFFD1@glocom.ac.jp> On Nov 23, 2014, at 9:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Am 23.11.14 02:23, schrieb Louis Pouzin (well): >> Hi all, > >> NetMundial was a similar scenario. The high level committee members >> never got any contact from the brazilian chair. ICANN had already taken >> over. > > Someone asked me to comment on this since I also was a member of the High Level Committee. So, I comment. According to my memory (and email archive) what Louis says is not true. > As a member of the executive committee which sent a draft to the HLC and then received comment, my memory is the same as Jeanette’s. Louis, I don’t remember you contributing much at all, on any list or in Sao Paulo, so perhaps you’re memory’s playing tricks. But I don’t have access to the HLC list archive. > The Executive Committee sent a draft for the HLMC to comment on. Some HLMC members commented, others didn't but complained instead about the lack of process. There was a lack of process, true, but this does not mean that ICANN had taken over. On the contrary, there was plenty of opportunity for us to influence and shape both the process and the draft documents. > EMC expected the HLC would produce a consolidated response, instead there were 9 or more different versions returned, mostly from government, but I remember documents from ICANN and ISOC (though members from non-govt organizations were there are individuals) . I am pretty sure those documents were leaked, so should be available online in some form or other. > Lack of process is not always a bad thing. In the case of NM it provided significant opportunities for CS to assume responsibility and contribute to the draft documents. Adam but also Marilia were among the people who contributed a lot to the drafts. The 'ICANN dominates the world' kind of narrative does not do justice to the efforts of CS people in this process. > I don’t remember anyone/any organization, including ICANN, trying to unduly influence EMC drafting. Prior to Sao Paulo, except for some silliness during the online comment period over “permissionless innovation”, the process was quite fair. Adam > jeanette > > >> >> This WEF/ICANN nebulous gobbledygook smacks of another railroading to >> capture some opponents to the US business predator strategy. Let's see >> what happens to Brazil. >> . >> Louis >> - - - >> >> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 11:34 PM, > > wrote: >> >> >> Dear members of CGI.Br and signatories of the appeal for support to the >> ICANN-WEF global IG Initiative; >> [snip] >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 iza at anr.org Sun Nov 23 09:07:28 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 23:07:28 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <59641E53-42DC-4E67-8CFB-8D401C6FFFD1@glocom.ac.jp> References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <5471CE20.2000500@wzb.eu> <59641E53-42DC-4E67-8CFB-8D401C6FFFD1@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: I feel very much similar to what Jeanette and Adam said already. Besides, it would be much more important to see ahead. To me, Net Mundial Initiative looks that much legitimate, but we need to see much beyond a shorter perspective. izumi 2014-11-23 21:32 GMT+09:00 Adam Peake : > > On Nov 23, 2014, at 9:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > > > > Am 23.11.14 02:23, schrieb Louis Pouzin (well): > >> Hi all, > > > >> NetMundial was a similar scenario. The high level committee members > >> never got any contact from the brazilian chair. ICANN had already taken > >> over. > > > > Someone asked me to comment on this since I also was a member of the > High Level Committee. So, I comment. According to my memory (and email > archive) what Louis says is not true. > > > > As a member of the executive committee which sent a draft to the HLC and > then received comment, my memory is the same as Jeanette’s. Louis, I don’t > remember you contributing much at all, on any list or in Sao Paulo, so > perhaps you’re memory’s playing tricks. But I don’t have access to the HLC > list archive. > > > > The Executive Committee sent a draft for the HLMC to comment on. Some > HLMC members commented, others didn't but complained instead about the lack > of process. There was a lack of process, true, but this does not mean that > ICANN had taken over. On the contrary, there was plenty of opportunity for > us to influence and shape both the process and the draft documents. > > > > EMC expected the HLC would produce a consolidated response, instead there > were 9 or more different versions returned, mostly from government, but I > remember documents from ICANN and ISOC (though members from non-govt > organizations were there are individuals) . I am pretty sure those > documents were leaked, so should be available online in some form or other. > > > > Lack of process is not always a bad thing. In the case of NM it provided > significant opportunities for CS to assume responsibility and contribute to > the draft documents. Adam but also Marilia were among the people who > contributed a lot to the drafts. The 'ICANN dominates the world' kind of > narrative does not do justice to the efforts of CS people in this process. > > > > > I don’t remember anyone/any organization, including ICANN, trying to > unduly influence EMC drafting. Prior to Sao Paulo, except for some > silliness during the online comment period over “permissionless > innovation”, the process was quite fair. > > Adam > > > > > jeanette > > > > > >> > >> This WEF/ICANN nebulous gobbledygook smacks of another railroading to > >> capture some opponents to the US business predator strategy. Let's see > >> what happens to Brazil. > >> . > >> Louis > >> - - - > >> > >> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 11:34 PM, >> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> Dear members of CGI.Br and signatories of the appeal for support to > the > >> ICANN-WEF global IG Initiative; > >> [snip] > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Nov 23 09:49:31 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 06:49:31 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <52509c07fdb04d2e75a4b87474d89e32.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Dear Carlos, Lets be fair in our comparison. Lula going to Davos is not at all comparable to Brazil joining WEF for a new global governance platform for the Internet. Do you really not see the difference here? (Although it is instructive that many people in Brazil opposed Lula even going to the WEF!) JNC has nothing against WEF as a clique of global big business advocating their view of how the world should be, or how it should be governed. JNC would even be happy to speak at Davos to share its own views on this matter, and/ or other matters. It would also be glad to hear other views and engage in a discussion, So you see, just going to Davos is not the issue. Lula's visit to Davos is an absolutely unviable justification for Brazil's support for NMI. Carlos, you know what NMI is, right. It is an effort to fill an increasingly undeniable 'gap' about the need to address and resolve many pressing global IG issues, especially the ones which fall on the 'public policy' or non-technical side. There is enough matter around testifying to this fact for me to have to quote specific texts for you. And they need to act NOW, because they are afraid of and must anticipate other possible processes like the WSIS plus 10 one, which could be around the corner. This is not at all like Lula going to Davis to give his vision of the world to those assembled at Davos. It is about a new governance paradigm, platform and system. And our fight is against that new global governance paradigm, and our appeal to Brazil gov and CGI is not to contribute to building this new global governance paradigm that is run by the global elite, with some cooptations here and there to garner some amount of legitimacy. This is as clear as daylight. I am stressing this point because CGI.Br which is joining in as a partner of what is essentially an ICANN-WEF game must give us a clearer view of what they think and know of this initiative. It will be such a pity if they join in ignorance, and even more, if others follow them in ignorance. The JNC statement on the NMI ( http://justnetcoalition.org/NMI-neoliberal-caravan ) quotes WEF texts on how they seek co-governance by corporations and governments on actual public policy issues, how the IG space is the ideal place to start with such an governance -by-elite model, and as digitalisation of all social systems take place, this model becomes the default for all areas and sectors. Can the Brazil government and CGI.Br really profess ignorance about these facts. If not, what is their response to these regressive global governance models which strike at the heart of democracy that the WEF professes, and of which the NMI is no doubt a lead element? We need to discuss these issues. It is not enough to make mother-and-applepie statements like CGI.Br will never join a top-down initiative. One cannot change the WEF view and scheme for the world just by using terms like bottom-up in places where they simply do not belong. In fact it is so embarrassing that this term is being used anywhere near the vicinity of WEF at all, which was famously described as fat cats meeting in snow. I think Brazil and CGI.Br are putting at stake their hard won global reputation and goodwill. I just consider it my duty to forewarn them, especially since as you know I and my organization have long worked closely with them on many issues. Best regards Parminder > Dear people, > > In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as president. As > usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with massive > acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in loco the > thousands of people cheering Lula. > > From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of > corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social movements of > course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a sort of > scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, NGOs > and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among them) -- > our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, and there is > no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took the reigns > of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it would be the other > way around. > > I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of > arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different > (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > (*) See, for example, this report: > http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate-globalisation > > On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> >>> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br has now >>> come >>> out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and ICANN >>> (basically >>> doing US's bidding) game. >> >> Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. >> >> >>> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave the world >>> the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the basic lessons >>> with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain economic >>> and >>> political elite, and their impatience with democracy, especially at the >>> global level! >>> >> >> Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. >> >> Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that excludes >> stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic backgrounds that >> you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but merely pure >> demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain far, far away >> from the civil society mainstream thinking on this subject. >> >>> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the Brazilian >>> government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a great >>> loss, >>> and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive community >>> has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be taken for >> >> I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global progressive >> community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you continue to push, >> and that the majority of the community apparently doesn't share. >> >>> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out >>> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global governance >>> initiative.* >>> >> >> Your support, and those of the small splinter group of extremists that >> caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us all from such >> support. >> >>> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work together >>> with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil society offer >>> ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the interests >>> and fate of the people of the world, and of the future generations. >>> Let >> >> That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of inclusiveness. Do >> stop trying to speak for civil society at large. You don't and have >> never represented it all. >> >> --srs >> > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Nov 23 10:12:32 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 07:12:32 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <5471B3D7.3040108@cafonso.ca> References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <5471B3D7.3040108@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: snip > > Finally, at least JNC does not think that "WEF/ICANN" is a "nebulous > gobbledygook", as they claim to know perfectly well that this a devilish > concoction for the "corporate takeover of the Internet". Yes, Carlos, JNC claims to know quite a bit about the WEF. In fact a lots of people know quite a bit. Just on their plans for global governance and how precisely the NMI fits into their plans, you may want to read State of Davos – The camel’s nose in the tents of global governance by David Sogge ( http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/download/state_of_davos_chapter.pdf ) See how clearly he predicts what NMI is upto, quite a bit before NMI took shape. And since you mentioned your emotions about Lula and the launch of World Social Forum, you would also for sure know that the World Social Forum was launched in clear opposition to the World Economic Forum and its world view. Knowing that much about WEF should suffice. There is something that is basic and structural to WEF, and a WEF led global IG paradigm can easily be criticised from that 'knowledge' alone. And you know that as more civil society people outside a certain charmed IG civil society circle hear about it, there can only be one response to it - surprise followed by dismay. parminder > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 11/22/14 23:23, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Remember WSIS. Brazil was the driving force in putting up the group of >> like minded countries. When final negotiation arrived, Brazil leadership >> evaporated. One could presume that they did not have the capacity to >> resist strong US arm twisting. >> >> NetMundial was a similar scenario. The high level committee members >> never got any contact from the brazilian chair. ICANN had already taken >> over. >> >> This WEF/ICANN nebulous gobbledygook smacks of another railroading to >> capture some opponents to the US business predator strategy. Let's see >> what happens to Brazil. >> . >> Louis >> - - - >> >> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 11:34 PM, > > wrote: >> >> >> Dear members of CGI.Br and signatories of the appeal for support to >> the >> ICANN-WEF global IG Initiative; >> [snip] >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Sun Nov 23 11:04:31 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 21:34:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <3D1E1CA9-1F08-4EC0-891C-4C39E3953A0D@difference.com.au> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <3D1E1CA9-1F08-4EC0-891C-4C39E3953A0D@difference.com.au> Message-ID: Dear David Cake, On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:47 AM, David Cake wrote: > Siva, there is a big difference between including WEF in the process, and > having them run the process by their own rules. > > I *welcome* the involvement of WEF in open, participatory, > multi-stakeholder spaces - they are in a good position to eloquently > express some of the positions of the commercial sector. Often, commercial > representatives within IG processes often represent small sectors of the > commercial world with very strong biases towards particular issues (such as > telcos and copyright cartels), WEF might be able to provide a broader > commercial perspective, and maybe commercial representation in IG spaces > might not be quite so dominated by a small cabal. And note, welcoming the > involvement of such organisations is not the same as having sympathy for > their policy positions and actions, simply I'd rather debate those > positions in an open, transparent, multi-stakeholder fora, rather than have > to battle covert lobbying and decision making in closed or opaque fora in > which CS has no voice. > But I *oppose* considering WEF processes as equivalent to open > multi-stakeholder ones in legitimacy. WEFs own processes are not open, they > are strictly gatekeepered. And they are commercial led processes, with > commercial goals. WEF is, of course, welcome to keep doing those things, > but such processes should not be considered legitimate means of producing > multi-stakeholder transnational consensus. And this NMI process certainly > started with assumptions that reflect the problems with WEF processes, such > as choosing the CS sector representatives that the WEF wanted. > 1. NETmundial is not in any way 'folded into' the WEF, so it does not become part of WEF. WEF is to be seen as an organization that has joined other organizations in this initiative. WEF processes may not be open, (it is upto the WEF to decide on its own style of managing their business forum), but as a participant of the NETmundial Initiative, WEF may not overwhelm this process with its own style. 2. NETMundial Initiative is a multi-stakeholder process where each stakeholder group would balance the other groups. ​If the initial NMI processes weren't perfect, I would rather consider it not so well thought of - in its early stages. As Harmut Glaser says, "It is up for the community to transform NMI into something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG in full respects of the principles enshrined in the NETmundial declaration. ​"​ Sivasubramanian M > > So, yes, bringing in the WEF can be considered a positive in some ways - > but not in the way the NMI process has gone so far. > > > > David > > > > On 19 Nov 2014, at 5:21 pm, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > Dear Guru, > > ​(You (Guru) said: ​ >> WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen the increasing >> danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the >> activities of transnational corporations. Apart from using/monetising our >> data for their commercial gains in authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal >> ways, their unregulated work also is structuring our participation in the >> information society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also >> understand how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on >> extraordinary programme of global surveillance > > > ​If such as strong generalization of big business is to be accepted as > fair and valid, then all those who subscribe to such a generalization may > have to go back to the WSIS declarations and summarily exclude Business as > a Stakeholder group, and then declare that Internet Governance ought to be > a process with two stakeholder groups - Government + Civil Society. No, > no, on second thoughts I see your reference to Snowden and USG+, so the > Civil Society could exclude Government from Internet Governance, and > declare that Internet Governance must be reinvented as a single stakeholder > group process, with Civil Society as the only stakeholder group. > > Seriously, i > f WSIS had committed to build a " > people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society > ​", what happens to inclusiveness and development with such a position on > Big Business? ​ > > > And, why this hatred for big business? Most progress in this world has > happened because of enterprise, much more because of business than because > of Government. Granted, some of the information technology big businesses > have worked with Governments on surveillance designs, and even there, we do > not know how of much of such cooperation came out of a desire for profit > and how much of it was forced by arm-twisting or by milder pressures in so > many subtle and imaginative ways. > > Irrespective of how WEF's role has been articulated at the moment, it is a > very positive development to bring in the WEF > . > ​ > WEF participation suddenly expands business participation to a world of > business outside the IT sector, so WEF's attention to IG issues might by > itself act as a balancing influence within the corporate world, because > many of these Big Businesses are Internet "users" themselves. > ​Some of these Big Businesses are possibly charitable in unknown ways. > What is needed here is strong support at the moment, and w > e could > ​eventually ​ > work towards a greater balance across stakeholder groups.​ > ​ > > Sivasubramanian M > > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Guru wrote: > >> Dear Mawaki >> >> I would like to cite from two sources: >> >> A. WSIS Declaration of Principles - >> http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html (the very first >> two clauses) >> >> 1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world*, *assembled in >> Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on >> the Information Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to build >> a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, >> where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and >> knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their >> full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving >> their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the >> Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the >> Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >> 2. Our challenge* is to harness the potential of information and >> communication technology to promote the development goals of the Millennium >> Declaration, namely the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; >> achievement of universal primary education; promotion of gender equality >> and empowerment of women; reduction of child mortality; improvement of >> maternal health; to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring >> environmental sustainability; and development of global partnerships for >> development for the attainment of a more peaceful, just and prosperous >> world. We also reiterate our commitment to the achievement of sustainable >> development and agreed development goals, as contained in the Johannesburg >> Declaration and Plan of Implementation and the Monterrey Consensus, and >> other outcomes of relevant United Nations Summits. >> >> I now will cite from the WEF site - http://www.weforum.org/our-members >> >> Begin >> Our Members >> The World Economic Forum is a membership organization. Our Members >> comprise 1,000 of the world’s top corporations, global enterprises usually >> with more than US$ 5 billion in turnover. These enterprises rank among the >> top companies within their industry and play a leading role in shaping the >> future of their industry and region. Some of our Member companies join the >> Forum’s Strategic and Industry Partnership communities, which are designed >> to deepen their engagement with the Forum’s events, project and >> initiatives. The Forum’s Members are at the heart of all our activities. >> End >> >> It is clear that WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen >> the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles >> from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from >> using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in >> authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated work >> also is structuring our participation in the information society in many >> unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are in >> cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global >> surveillance, which helps them in their goals of political-economic >> domination / colonisation >> >> Participating in forums anchored in such a space will only legitimise >> their power. I am clear that IGC should not participate in the NMI. >> >> thanks and regards >> Guru >> >> Gurumurthy Kasinathan >> Director, IT for Change >> In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC >> www.ITforChange.Net | Cell:91 9845437730 | >> Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890 >> http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum >> >> >> On Tuesday 18 November 2014 05:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> > Dear All, >> > >> > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't repeat >> > the background details. In the middle of the night last night, before >> > hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing catch-up with >> > deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI >> > Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, they are >> > willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the NMI >> > Coordination Council. >> > >> > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership of CSCG >> > member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI process or >> > not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations we've been >> > having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and with the >> > membership of our respective organizations.) After this we should be >> > able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position about >> > our participation in the NMI process. >> > >> > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be brief. >> > State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement and, if >> > you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you if you >> > could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph (as we >> > just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see what I >> > mean.) >> > >> > Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. >> > >> > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From caribe at entropia.blog.br Sun Nov 23 11:52:15 2014 From: caribe at entropia.blog.br (Joao Carlos Caribe) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 14:52:15 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <5471BC3C.9010602@cafonso.ca> References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> <5471BC3C.9010602@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Dears let me bring my $0.02... I understand the Parminder's ponderations about the fact that Brazilian CGI.Br could be spending political capital. Also the Wolfgang's valuable placements about the concerns overshadowed by the NMI thread must not be forgotten. Also going back to the past we must remember that NetMundial meeting was purposed by Fadi to our president Dilma after her valuable speech at UN based on the CGI.Br principles. One of the first step of the Brazilian government after this meeting was seeking for the CGI.Br advice. Following this I think we must remember the Bali meeting with Bests Bits and the Brazilian government that shaped the way NM meeting would be. Also remember our shared concerns about this meetings, included the fact if they would or not be necessary. Also we are facing the same dilemma, concerns, and obviously evaluating the political wealth of our positioning. Also my point of view remains the same, NMI will move forward with or without us, and I continue imagining despite the NMI was connected to WEF, our progressive participation on the board in a maximum number of chairs allow us to strength our force against the any WEF position. Also resulting the growth or shrinkage potential of NMI. Hugs _ João Carlos Caribé (21) 8761 1967 Enviado via iPad > Em 23/11/2014, às 08:51, Carlos Afonso escreveu: > > BTW, I recall your article in that US-based blog, Huffington Post, denouncing NETmundial (not the initiative, but the meeting), just before the start of the event, as a complot by USA and the corporate folks to complete their "domination over the Internet": > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanchristophe-nothias/for-more-internet-and-mor_b_5175698.html > > I quote: "Still the Netmundial true co-organizers, ICANN and CGI.br still have had to make choices, even though the cost for traveling to Brazil already provided a natural selection in terms of attendance. To date, corporate delegates are to occupy more than 40 percent of the room. So here we are, after six months of intense behind-closed-doors preparation, ready to attend Netmundial, a conference that claims to be "multistakeholder," but which is really about launching the next stage of US global multistakeholder domination over the Internet, thanks to an ICANN++." > > Do you still think this is a true rendering of the NETmundia event? > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > >> On 11/23/14 07:17, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: >> Carlos, >> >> Following what Parminder and Louis wrote, and I am in full agreement >> with both, but I think every one here makes a difference between Lula >> accepting very rightfully to come to express his views at Davos, and >> Lula joining an initiative by a Californian non profit making profit and >> a Swiss non profit making even more profit. Therefore, I would bet that >> everyone makes a clear difference between partying with an unclear >> setting by WEF/ICANN , and its Brazilian companion of misfortune, and an >> invitation to talk to the global leaders, thanks to a nice room service >> in Davos. >> >> That being said, I thank Wolfgang for reminding us that NMI is taking >> our eyes away from more serious concerns - an evidence that this >> initiative might be a great deal of waste for civil society asking >> itself questions (not about the contents) but about the seats. >> >> JC >> >> >> >> >>> Le 23 nov. 2014 à 00:46, Carlos Afonso a écrit : >>> >>> Dear people, >>> >>> In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as president. >>> As usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with >>> massive acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in >>> loco the thousands of people cheering Lula. >>> >>> From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of >>> corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social movements of >>> course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a sort >>> of scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, >>> NGOs and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among >>> them) -- our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, and >>> there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took >>> the reigns of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it would >>> be the other way around. >>> >>> I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of >>> arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different >>> (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. >>> >>> fraternal regards >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> (*) See, for example, this report: >>> http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate-globalisation >>> >>> On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br has now >>>>> come >>>>> out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and ICANN >>>>> (basically >>>>> doing US's bidding) game. >>>> >>>> Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. >>>> >>>> >>>>> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave the world >>>>> the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the basic lessons >>>>> with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain >>>>> economic and >>>>> political elite, and their impatience with democracy, especially at the >>>>> global level! >>>>> >>>> >>>> Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. >>>> >>>> Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that excludes >>>> stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic backgrounds >>>> that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but merely pure >>>> demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain far, far away >>>> from the civil society mainstream thinking on this subject. >>>> >>>>> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the Brazilian >>>>> government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a great >>>>> loss, >>>>> and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive community >>>>> has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be taken for >>>> >>>> I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global progressive >>>> community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you continue to >>>> push, and that the majority of the community apparently doesn't share. >>>> >>>>> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out >>>>> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global governance >>>>> initiative.* >>>>> >>>> >>>> Your support, and those of the small splinter group of extremists >>>> that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us all from >>>> such support. >>>> >>>>> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work together >>>>> with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil society offer >>>>> ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the interests >>>>> and fate of the people of the world, and of the future generations. Let >>>> >>>> That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of inclusiveness. >>>> Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large. You don't and >>>> have never represented it all. >>>> >>>> --srs >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 23 12:40:53 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 11:40:53 -0600 Subject: [bestbits] Nothing to do with internet governance or NMI WAS Re: [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <20141123092644.GA32430@tarvainen.info> References: <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <1772746e261a18240cf44a85af7af3b9.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <170887ED-E12C-4CC0-A096-8D953A6BD959@theglobaljournal.net> <52A7F924-918D-4166-865B-2CAF69EAA78B@theglobaljournal.net> <9F734EF9-FD60-4E95-B62F-6AB0C9FB9667@theglobaljournal.net> <20141123092644.GA32430@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Hi Tapani, On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:26 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:09:26AM +0100, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The > Global Journal (jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net) wrote: > > [addressing McTim] > > > I agree with you that Democracy is an important issue. I keep > > thinking that your repeated attacks against democracy, are totally > > dangerous and toxic. > > Curiously, I never thought McTim was attacking democracy. > That is correct. I have never attacked democracy or made any statements suggesting that I was opposed to democracy. > Rather the opposite: when he says something was a result > of democracy, it isn't blaming democracy but implying > that said something must be good, by definition, because it > was a result of democracy. > I was merely saying that the current international tax regime which allows entities to avoid taxes is a result of laws passed in Ireland, Holland and elsewhere. I wasn't saying that these laws (or non-existent of laws that prevent such behavior) were good, simply that the current situation exists due to laws and regulations that allow it. This was labelled, mistakenly as un-democratic, insane and dangerous. This behavior is contrary to Charter of IGC and I would hope that the co-ordinators note this. I am not a big fan of tax avoidance (which is legal) nor am I a fan of tax evasion (which is illegal). Here is a lesson on the two: http://www.translegal.com/legal-english-lessons/tax-avoidance Despite some far-fetched and completely erroneous leap of "logic" on JC's part, I have never advocated any non-democratic form of governance of a nation state. It is illogical to think that a criticism of an outcome of democratic policy making always suggests that switching to a non-democratic system of governance must be the end point of such criticism. if it was logical, then JCs criticism of corruption is anti-democratic and he is advocating a change from democracy to something else. This is an absurd train of thought that a rational person would never follow. In addition, JC suggests up-thread that *"Democracy bashing* is condemnable as well". I do not believe this is the case according to the IGC Charter. If someone on list is not a democrat and feels that another system of governance is better suited than democracy, then he or she should have the right to express that opinion on this list without being attacked or condemned. In other words, if I was an anarchist or a believer in the superiority of theocracy, then that is an opinion that I should be free to express. Here is what our charter says about messages on list. it doesn't say that only supporters of "democracy" are allowed to post: The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:  refrain from personal attacks, insults or slander  refrain from offensive or discriminating language  refrain from threats , including threats of legal action, on list or off list  refrain from excessive and repetitive posting Inappropriate postings to the IGC list include  Unsolicited bulk e-mail  Discussion of subjects unrelated to the IGC mission and objectives  Unprofessional or discourteous commentary, regardless of the general subject  Sequences of messages by one or more participants that cause an IGC list to become a hostile environment I count at least 6 of these that JC has violated in this thread. I ask for action by the co-co's. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hindenburgo at gmail.com Sun Nov 23 14:43:37 2014 From: hindenburgo at gmail.com (Hindenburgo Pires) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 17:43:37 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> <5471BC3C.9010602@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Hi fellows, Another clarification with regard to Internet governance is needed for the period in which Lula presided Brazil, there was a Brazilian multilateral diplomatic position, which did not accept the Icann *multistakeholdism*. In 2007, the second IGF in Rio de Janeiro, the Minister of Culture, Gilberto Gil, defended the UN mandate to manage the Internet, also proposed a new ecology (or another Internet ecosystem) and a model "post-multistakeholder" for IG. Following the same direction of Gil, Minister of Strategic Affairs, Mangabeira Unger, proposed the creation of an international agency to administer the Internet and criticized the Internet Control by a single country. It must be said that President Dilma Rousseffi, the opening of the 68th General Assembly of the United Nations on 24 September 2013, held in the Brazilian diplomatic tradition one multilateralist discourse, which advocated a democratic governance, multilateral and open. What happened was a maneuver performed by the CGI-Br members to break the diplomatic tradition of Brazil and make a meeting coordinated by ICANN and I * that began to adopt *m**ultistakeholdist* ideology in the Sao Paulo meeting, the NetMundial. The meeting failed when not discussed the policies to fight the mass surveillance carried out by the US, when not produced a single line on the asymmetric model for the roots server system, when not opted to set a clear policy favorable to net neutrality. To overcome the *multistakeholdis**t* ideology of NetMundial Iniciative, civil society organizations (as JNC), social movements in networks and public and private actors need to engage in fights and discussions to build a new model of IG, which guarantee: a) a worldwide organization for Internet, that really represents the interests of all nation states and to ensure net neutrality and respect the Internet as a common good; b) a worldwide Internet statement that has as principle the protection of privacy, freedom of expression and to promote free and universal access to the Internet and free software; c) a court with international jurisdiction of arbitration, which complies with the laws set forth in the statement of the Internet and to act against any mass surveillance system and other crimes that could threaten human rights, the freedom of organization of society and sovereignty countries. Regards, Hindenburgo 2014-11-23 14:52 GMT-02:00 Joao Carlos Caribe : > Dears let me bring my $0.02... > > I understand the Parminder's ponderations about the fact that Brazilian > CGI.Br could be spending political capital. Also the Wolfgang's valuable > placements about the concerns overshadowed by the NMI thread must not be > forgotten. > > Also going back to the past we must remember that NetMundial meeting was > purposed by Fadi to our president Dilma after her valuable speech at UN > based on the CGI.Br principles. One of the first step of the Brazilian > government after this meeting was seeking for the CGI.Br advice. Following > this I think we must remember the Bali meeting with Bests Bits and the > Brazilian government that shaped the way NM meeting would be. Also remember > our shared concerns about this meetings, included the fact if they would or > not be necessary. > > Also we are facing the same dilemma, concerns, and obviously evaluating > the political wealth of our positioning. Also my point of view remains the > same, NMI will move forward with or without us, and I continue imagining > despite the NMI was connected to WEF, our progressive participation on the > board in a maximum number of chairs allow us to strength our force against > the any WEF position. Also resulting the growth or shrinkage potential of > NMI. > > Hugs > > > _ > João Carlos Caribé > (21) 8761 1967 > Enviado via iPad > > > Em 23/11/2014, às 08:51, Carlos Afonso escreveu: > > > > BTW, I recall your article in that US-based blog, Huffington Post, > denouncing NETmundial (not the initiative, but the meeting), just before > the start of the event, as a complot by USA and the corporate folks to > complete their "domination over the Internet": > > > > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanchristophe-nothias/for-more-internet-and-mor_b_5175698.html > > > > I quote: "Still the Netmundial true co-organizers, ICANN and CGI.br > still have had to make choices, even though the cost for traveling to > Brazil already provided a natural selection in terms of attendance. To > date, corporate delegates are to occupy more than 40 percent of the room. > So here we are, after six months of intense behind-closed-doors > preparation, ready to attend Netmundial, a conference that claims to be > "multistakeholder," but which is really about launching the next stage of > US global multistakeholder domination over the Internet, thanks to an > ICANN++." > > > > Do you still think this is a true rendering of the NETmundia event? > > > > frt rgds > > > > --c.a. > > > >> On 11/23/14 07:17, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > >> Carlos, > >> > >> Following what Parminder and Louis wrote, and I am in full agreement > >> with both, but I think every one here makes a difference between Lula > >> accepting very rightfully to come to express his views at Davos, and > >> Lula joining an initiative by a Californian non profit making profit and > >> a Swiss non profit making even more profit. Therefore, I would bet that > >> everyone makes a clear difference between partying with an unclear > >> setting by WEF/ICANN , and its Brazilian companion of misfortune, and an > >> invitation to talk to the global leaders, thanks to a nice room service > >> in Davos. > >> > >> That being said, I thank Wolfgang for reminding us that NMI is taking > >> our eyes away from more serious concerns - an evidence that this > >> initiative might be a great deal of waste for civil society asking > >> itself questions (not about the contents) but about the seats. > >> > >> JC > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> Le 23 nov. 2014 à 00:46, Carlos Afonso a écrit : > >>> > >>> Dear people, > >>> > >>> In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as president. > >>> As usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with > >>> massive acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in > >>> loco the thousands of people cheering Lula. > >>> > >>> From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of > >>> corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social movements of > >>> course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a sort > >>> of scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, > >>> NGOs and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among > >>> them) -- our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, and > >>> there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took > >>> the reigns of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it would > >>> be the other way around. > >>> > >>> I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of > >>> arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different > >>> (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. > >>> > >>> fraternal regards > >>> > >>> --c.a. > >>> > >>> (*) See, for example, this report: > >>> > http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate-globalisation > >>> > >>> On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br has now > >>>>> come > >>>>> out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and ICANN > >>>>> (basically > >>>>> doing US's bidding) game. > >>>> > >>>> Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave the > world > >>>>> the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the basic > lessons > >>>>> with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain > >>>>> economic and > >>>>> political elite, and their impatience with democracy, especially at > the > >>>>> global level! > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. > >>>> > >>>> Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that excludes > >>>> stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic backgrounds > >>>> that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but merely pure > >>>> demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain far, far away > >>>> from the civil society mainstream thinking on this subject. > >>>> > >>>>> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the > Brazilian > >>>>> government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a great > >>>>> loss, > >>>>> and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive > community > >>>>> has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be taken for > >>>> > >>>> I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global progressive > >>>> community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you continue to > >>>> push, and that the majority of the community apparently doesn't share. > >>>> > >>>>> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out > >>>>> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global governance > >>>>> initiative.* > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Your support, and those of the small splinter group of extremists > >>>> that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us all from > >>>> such support. > >>>> > >>>>> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work > together > >>>>> with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil society offer > >>>>> ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the > interests > >>>>> and fate of the people of the world, and of the future generations. > Let > >>>> > >>>> That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of inclusiveness. > >>>> Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large. You don't and > >>>> have never represented it all. > >>>> > >>>> --srs > >>>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Hindenburgo Francisco Pires Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro Departamento de Geografia Humana *Sítio-web: http://www.cibergeo.org * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Nov 23 15:22:57 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 12:22:57 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> <5471B8A6.2070304@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <0c6e01d0075b$456771d0$d0365570$@gmail.com> BTW, I'm still waiting for someone to reply to this rather minimal set of questions/comments... They were originally addressed to Carlos Afonso but anyone supporting the NMI might want to provide a response. M -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 3:59 AM To: 'Carlos Afonso'; 'Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org' Cc: 'Parminder Singh'; 'Hartmut Richard Glaser'; 'Best Bits' Subject: RE: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br A "pluralist space" for what exactly? The lack of any clear answer to that question is what makes a lot of people including myself very uneasy. Clearly the NMI folks are very concerned to get buy in/legitimation from civil society to the point of making apparent concessions in order to obtain this. Precisely what is civil society gaining in return for according this legitimacy? And contrary to what many have suggested this is very much a zero sum game. Once accorded, it will be extremely hard if not impossible to withdraw the legitimacy which has been granted. M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos Afonso Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 2:36 AM To: Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: Parminder Singh; Hartmut Richard Glaser; Best Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br I recalled Lula's visit to WEF for the obvious reason that the arguments used by some CS sectors against his travel to Davos at the time were exactly the same as JNC's today. To complete the horror, in 2010 WEF honored Lula with the Global Statesman award. I agree with your last phrase -- some of CS are so sanguine about the simple quotation of the "WEF" word that they are disregarding the more strategic questions. Is this initiative going to be a waste of time? Maybe. We (CG) are and will be trying hard for it to succeed as a pluralist space. fraternal regards --c.a. On 11/23/14 07:17, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Carlos, > > Following what Parminder and Louis wrote, and I am in full agreement > with both, but I think every one here makes a difference between Lula > accepting very rightfully to come to express his views at Davos, and > Lula joining an initiative by a Californian non profit making profit > and a Swiss non profit making even more profit. Therefore, I would bet > that everyone makes a clear difference between partying with an > unclear setting by WEF/ICANN , and its Brazilian companion of > misfortune, and an invitation to talk to the global leaders, thanks to > a nice room service in Davos. > > That being said, I thank Wolfgang for reminding us that NMI is taking > our eyes away from more serious concerns - an evidence that this > initiative might be a great deal of waste for civil society asking > itself questions (not about the contents) but about the seats. > > JC > > > > > Le 23 nov. 2014 à 00:46, Carlos Afonso a écrit : > >> Dear people, >> >> In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as president. >> As usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with >> massive acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in >> loco the thousands of people cheering Lula. >> >> From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of >> corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social movements of >> course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a sort >> of scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, >> NGOs and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among >> them) -- our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, >> and there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF >> took the reigns of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it >> would be the other way around. >> >> I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of >> arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different >> (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> (*) See, for example, this report: >> http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate >> -globalisation >> >> On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>> >>>> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br has >>>> now come out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and >>>> ICANN (basically doing US's bidding) game. >>> >>> Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. >>> >>> >>>> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave the >>>> world the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the >>>> basic lessons with regard to the designs of global domination by a >>>> certain economic and political elite, and their impatience with >>>> democracy, especially at the global level! >>>> >>> >>> Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. >>> >>> Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that >>> excludes stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic >>> backgrounds that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but >>> merely pure demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain >>> far, far away from the civil society mainstream thinking on this subject. >>> >>>> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the >>>> Brazilian government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be >>>> such a great loss, and very much hope were not the case. *The >>>> global progressive community has consistently supported you, but >>>> this support cannot be taken for >>> >>> I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global progressive >>> community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you continue to >>> push, and that the majority of the community apparently doesn't share. >>> >>>> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out >>>> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global governance >>>> initiative.* >>>> >>> >>> Your support, and those of the small splinter group of extremists >>> that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us all from >>> such support. >>> >>>> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work >>>> together with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil >>>> society offer ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands >>>> today the interests and fate of the people of the world, and of >>>> the future generations. Let >>> >>> That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of inclusiveness. >>> Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large. You don't and >>> have never represented it all. >>> >>> --srs >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 23 19:05:08 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 05:35:08 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> <5471BC3C.9010602@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <7675658E-5716-4908-994D-165735DB0118@hserus.net> I am sorry, but what specific problem do you see with the root server system? And I find it ironic if not disgusting that after celebrating the defeat of multilateralism in a country, efforts to make IG multistakeholder are being opposed. --srs (iPad) > On 24-Nov-2014, at 01:13, Hindenburgo Pires wrote: > > Hi fellows, > Another clarification with regard to Internet governance is needed for the period in which Lula presided Brazil, there was a Brazilian multilateral diplomatic position, which did not accept the Icann multistakeholdism. In 2007, the second IGF in Rio de Janeiro, the Minister of Culture, Gilberto Gil, defended the UN mandate to manage the Internet, also proposed a new ecology (or another Internet ecosystem) and a model "post-multistakeholder" for IG. Following the same direction of Gil, Minister of Strategic Affairs, Mangabeira Unger, proposed the creation of an international agency to administer the Internet and criticized the Internet Control by a single country. > It must be said that President Dilma Rousseffi, the opening of the 68th General Assembly of the United Nations on 24 September 2013, held in the Brazilian diplomatic tradition one multilateralist discourse, which advocated a democratic governance, multilateral and open. What happened was a maneuver performed by the CGI-Br members to break the diplomatic tradition of Brazil and make a meeting coordinated by ICANN and I * that began to adopt multistakeholdist ideology in the Sao Paulo meeting, the NetMundial. The meeting failed when not discussed the policies to fight the mass surveillance carried out by the US, when not produced a single line on the asymmetric model for the roots server system, when not opted to set a clear policy favorable to net neutrality. > To overcome the multistakeholdist ideology of NetMundial Iniciative, civil society organizations (as JNC), social movements in networks and public and private actors need to engage in fights and discussions to build a new model of IG, which guarantee: a) a worldwide organization for Internet, that really represents the interests of all nation states and to ensure net neutrality and respect the Internet as a common good; b) a worldwide Internet statement that has as principle the protection of privacy, freedom of expression and to promote free and universal access to the Internet and free software; c) a court with international jurisdiction of arbitration, which complies with the laws set forth in the statement of the Internet and to act against any mass surveillance system and other crimes that could threaten human rights, the freedom of organization of society and sovereignty countries. > > Regards, > Hindenburgo > > 2014-11-23 14:52 GMT-02:00 Joao Carlos Caribe : >> Dears let me bring my $0.02... >> >> I understand the Parminder's ponderations about the fact that Brazilian CGI.Br could be spending political capital. Also the Wolfgang's valuable placements about the concerns overshadowed by the NMI thread must not be forgotten. >> >> Also going back to the past we must remember that NetMundial meeting was purposed by Fadi to our president Dilma after her valuable speech at UN based on the CGI.Br principles. One of the first step of the Brazilian government after this meeting was seeking for the CGI.Br advice. Following this I think we must remember the Bali meeting with Bests Bits and the Brazilian government that shaped the way NM meeting would be. Also remember our shared concerns about this meetings, included the fact if they would or not be necessary. >> >> Also we are facing the same dilemma, concerns, and obviously evaluating the political wealth of our positioning. Also my point of view remains the same, NMI will move forward with or without us, and I continue imagining despite the NMI was connected to WEF, our progressive participation on the board in a maximum number of chairs allow us to strength our force against the any WEF position. Also resulting the growth or shrinkage potential of NMI. >> >> Hugs >> >> >> _ >> João Carlos Caribé >> (21) 8761 1967 >> Enviado via iPad >> >> > Em 23/11/2014, às 08:51, Carlos Afonso escreveu: >> > >> > BTW, I recall your article in that US-based blog, Huffington Post, denouncing NETmundial (not the initiative, but the meeting), just before the start of the event, as a complot by USA and the corporate folks to complete their "domination over the Internet": >> > >> > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanchristophe-nothias/for-more-internet-and-mor_b_5175698.html >> > >> > I quote: "Still the Netmundial true co-organizers, ICANN and CGI.br still have had to make choices, even though the cost for traveling to Brazil already provided a natural selection in terms of attendance. To date, corporate delegates are to occupy more than 40 percent of the room. So here we are, after six months of intense behind-closed-doors preparation, ready to attend Netmundial, a conference that claims to be "multistakeholder," but which is really about launching the next stage of US global multistakeholder domination over the Internet, thanks to an ICANN++." >> > >> > Do you still think this is a true rendering of the NETmundia event? >> > >> > frt rgds >> > >> > --c.a. >> > >> >> On 11/23/14 07:17, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: >> >> Carlos, >> >> >> >> Following what Parminder and Louis wrote, and I am in full agreement >> >> with both, but I think every one here makes a difference between Lula >> >> accepting very rightfully to come to express his views at Davos, and >> >> Lula joining an initiative by a Californian non profit making profit and >> >> a Swiss non profit making even more profit. Therefore, I would bet that >> >> everyone makes a clear difference between partying with an unclear >> >> setting by WEF/ICANN , and its Brazilian companion of misfortune, and an >> >> invitation to talk to the global leaders, thanks to a nice room service >> >> in Davos. >> >> >> >> That being said, I thank Wolfgang for reminding us that NMI is taking >> >> our eyes away from more serious concerns - an evidence that this >> >> initiative might be a great deal of waste for civil society asking >> >> itself questions (not about the contents) but about the seats. >> >> >> >> JC >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Le 23 nov. 2014 à 00:46, Carlos Afonso a écrit : >> >>> >> >>> Dear people, >> >>> >> >>> In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as president. >> >>> As usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with >> >>> massive acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in >> >>> loco the thousands of people cheering Lula. >> >>> >> >>> From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of >> >>> corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social movements of >> >>> course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a sort >> >>> of scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, >> >>> NGOs and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among >> >>> them) -- our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, and >> >>> there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took >> >>> the reigns of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it would >> >>> be the other way around. >> >>> >> >>> I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of >> >>> arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different >> >>> (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. >> >>> >> >>> fraternal regards >> >>> >> >>> --c.a. >> >>> >> >>> (*) See, for example, this report: >> >>> http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate-globalisation >> >>> >> >>> On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br has now >> >>>>> come >> >>>>> out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and ICANN >> >>>>> (basically >> >>>>> doing US's bidding) game. >> >>>> >> >>>> Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave the world >> >>>>> the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the basic lessons >> >>>>> with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain >> >>>>> economic and >> >>>>> political elite, and their impatience with democracy, especially at the >> >>>>> global level! >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. >> >>>> >> >>>> Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that excludes >> >>>> stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic backgrounds >> >>>> that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but merely pure >> >>>> demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain far, far away >> >>>> from the civil society mainstream thinking on this subject. >> >>>> >> >>>>> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the Brazilian >> >>>>> government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a great >> >>>>> loss, >> >>>>> and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive community >> >>>>> has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be taken for >> >>>> >> >>>> I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global progressive >> >>>> community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you continue to >> >>>> push, and that the majority of the community apparently doesn't share. >> >>>> >> >>>>> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out >> >>>>> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global governance >> >>>>> initiative.* >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Your support, and those of the small splinter group of extremists >> >>>> that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us all from >> >>>> such support. >> >>>> >> >>>>> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work together >> >>>>> with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil society offer >> >>>>> ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the interests >> >>>>> and fate of the people of the world, and of the future generations. Let >> >>>> >> >>>> That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of inclusiveness. >> >>>> Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large. You don't and >> >>>> have never represented it all. >> >>>> >> >>>> --srs >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>> >> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>> >> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > Hindenburgo Francisco Pires > > Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro > Departamento de Geografia Humana > Sítio-web: http://www.cibergeo.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nnenna75 at gmail.com Sun Nov 23 22:41:34 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 03:41:34 +0000 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <3D1E1CA9-1F08-4EC0-891C-4C39E3953A0D@difference.com.au> Message-ID: It is Monday 3:40 AM GMT. I am STILL in favour of IGC engaging with NMI. Nnenna On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > Dear David Cake, > > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:47 AM, David Cake > wrote: > >> Siva, there is a big difference between including WEF in the process, and >> having them run the process by their own rules. >> >> I *welcome* the involvement of WEF in open, participatory, >> multi-stakeholder spaces - they are in a good position to eloquently >> express some of the positions of the commercial sector. Often, commercial >> representatives within IG processes often represent small sectors of the >> commercial world with very strong biases towards particular issues (such as >> telcos and copyright cartels), WEF might be able to provide a broader >> commercial perspective, and maybe commercial representation in IG spaces >> might not be quite so dominated by a small cabal. And note, welcoming the >> involvement of such organisations is not the same as having sympathy for >> their policy positions and actions, simply I'd rather debate those >> positions in an open, transparent, multi-stakeholder fora, rather than have >> to battle covert lobbying and decision making in closed or opaque fora in >> which CS has no voice. >> > But I *oppose* considering WEF processes as equivalent to open >> multi-stakeholder ones in legitimacy. WEFs own processes are not open, they >> are strictly gatekeepered. And they are commercial led processes, with >> commercial goals. WEF is, of course, welcome to keep doing those things, >> but such processes should not be considered legitimate means of producing >> multi-stakeholder transnational consensus. And this NMI process certainly >> started with assumptions that reflect the problems with WEF processes, such >> as choosing the CS sector representatives that the WEF wanted. >> > > > 1. NETmundial is not in any way 'folded into' the WEF, so it does not > become part of WEF. WEF is to be seen as an organization that has joined > other organizations in this initiative. WEF processes may not be open, (it > is upto the WEF to decide on its own style of managing their business > forum), but as a participant of the NETmundial Initiative, WEF may not > overwhelm this process with its own style. > > 2. NETMundial Initiative is a multi-stakeholder process where each > stakeholder group would balance the other groups. ​If the initial NMI > processes weren't perfect, I would rather consider it not so well thought > of - in its early stages. > > As Harmut Glaser says, "It is up for the community to transform NMI into > something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG in full > respects of the principles enshrined in the NETmundial declaration. > ​"​ > > Sivasubramanian M > > >> >> So, yes, bringing in the WEF can be considered a positive in some ways - >> but not in the way the NMI process has gone so far. >> >> >> >> David >> >> >> >> On 19 Nov 2014, at 5:21 pm, Sivasubramanian M >> wrote: >> >> Dear Guru, >> >> ​(You (Guru) said: ​ >>> WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen the increasing >>> danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the >>> activities of transnational corporations. Apart from using/monetising our >>> data for their commercial gains in authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal >>> ways, their unregulated work also is structuring our participation in the >>> information society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also >>> understand how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on >>> extraordinary programme of global surveillance >> >> >> ​If such as strong generalization of big business is to be accepted as >> fair and valid, then all those who subscribe to such a generalization may >> have to go back to the WSIS declarations and summarily exclude Business as >> a Stakeholder group, and then declare that Internet Governance ought to be >> a process with two stakeholder groups - Government + Civil Society. No, >> no, on second thoughts I see your reference to Snowden and USG+, so the >> Civil Society could exclude Government from Internet Governance, and >> declare that Internet Governance must be reinvented as a single stakeholder >> group process, with Civil Society as the only stakeholder group. >> >> Seriously, i >> f WSIS had committed to build a " >> people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society >> ​", what happens to inclusiveness and development with such a position on >> Big Business? ​ >> >> >> And, why this hatred for big business? Most progress in this world has >> happened because of enterprise, much more because of business than because >> of Government. Granted, some of the information technology big businesses >> have worked with Governments on surveillance designs, and even there, we do >> not know how of much of such cooperation came out of a desire for profit >> and how much of it was forced by arm-twisting or by milder pressures in so >> many subtle and imaginative ways. >> >> Irrespective of how WEF's role has been articulated at the moment, it is >> a very positive development to bring in the WEF >> . >> ​ >> WEF participation suddenly expands business participation to a world of >> business outside the IT sector, so WEF's attention to IG issues might by >> itself act as a balancing influence within the corporate world, because >> many of these Big Businesses are Internet "users" themselves. >> ​Some of these Big Businesses are possibly charitable in unknown ways. >> What is needed here is strong support at the moment, and w >> e could >> ​eventually ​ >> work towards a greater balance across stakeholder groups.​ >> ​ >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Guru wrote: >> >>> Dear Mawaki >>> >>> I would like to cite from two sources: >>> >>> A. WSIS Declaration of Principles - >>> http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html (the very first >>> two clauses) >>> >>> 1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world*, *assembled in >>> Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on >>> the Information Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to build >>> a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, >>> where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and >>> knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their >>> full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving >>> their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the >>> Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the >>> Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>> 2. Our challenge* is to harness the potential of information and >>> communication technology to promote the development goals of the Millennium >>> Declaration, namely the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; >>> achievement of universal primary education; promotion of gender equality >>> and empowerment of women; reduction of child mortality; improvement of >>> maternal health; to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring >>> environmental sustainability; and development of global partnerships for >>> development for the attainment of a more peaceful, just and prosperous >>> world. We also reiterate our commitment to the achievement of sustainable >>> development and agreed development goals, as contained in the Johannesburg >>> Declaration and Plan of Implementation and the Monterrey Consensus, and >>> other outcomes of relevant United Nations Summits. >>> >>> I now will cite from the WEF site - http://www.weforum.org/our-members >>> >>> Begin >>> Our Members >>> The World Economic Forum is a membership organization. Our Members >>> comprise 1,000 of the world’s top corporations, global enterprises usually >>> with more than US$ 5 billion in turnover. These enterprises rank among the >>> top companies within their industry and play a leading role in shaping the >>> future of their industry and region. Some of our Member companies join the >>> Forum’s Strategic and Industry Partnership communities, which are designed >>> to deepen their engagement with the Forum’s events, project and >>> initiatives. The Forum’s Members are at the heart of all our activities. >>> End >>> >>> It is clear that WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have >>> seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of >>> Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from >>> using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in >>> authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated work >>> also is structuring our participation in the information society in many >>> unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are in >>> cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global >>> surveillance, which helps them in their goals of political-economic >>> domination / colonisation >>> >>> Participating in forums anchored in such a space will only legitimise >>> their power. I am clear that IGC should not participate in the NMI. >>> >>> thanks and regards >>> Guru >>> >>> Gurumurthy Kasinathan >>> Director, IT for Change >>> In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC >>> www.ITforChange.Net | Cell:91 9845437730 | >>> Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890 >>> http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday 18 November 2014 05:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >>> > Dear All, >>> > >>> > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't repeat >>> > the background details. In the middle of the night last night, before >>> > hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing catch-up with >>> > deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI >>> > Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, they are >>> > willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the NMI >>> > Coordination Council. >>> > >>> > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership of CSCG >>> > member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI process or >>> > not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations we've been >>> > having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and with the >>> > membership of our respective organizations.) After this we should be >>> > able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position about >>> > our participation in the NMI process. >>> > >>> > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be brief. >>> > State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement and, if >>> > you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you if you >>> > could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph (as we >>> > just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see what I >>> > mean.) >>> > >>> > Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. >>> > >>> > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Nov 23 23:36:52 2014 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 04:36:52 +0000 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <3D1E1CA9-1F08-4EC0-891C-4C39E3953A0D@difference.com.au> , Message-ID: I am MORE in favor IGC engaging with NMI because: 1. the rationale and explanations from Carlos Afonso and cgi.br colleagues are clear and sensible; those who helped pull off NetMundial have earned IGC’s support 2. The views of the I-orgs, who were against IGF before they were for it (cough cough), are also clear but less convincing, seeing as those orgs do not claim to be the appropriate venues themselves to address the range of issues likely to be (in my opinion) brought to NMI, and offer no alternative. Should NMI prove to be of some merit, no doubt the I orgs will engage at a later date. 3. Likewise, the more JNC has explained its views, the less weight they hold, seeing as they appear focused on a specifically anti-US big (internet) business animus , completely neglecting to note the new giants on the block such as Alibaba's record-setting IPO which has resulted in a firm that has a market cap far exceeding the Amazon boogeyman, as well as Walmart's. (not that there is anything wrong with Alibaba, but obsessively picking on the little guy/small(er) business - Amazon ; ) - seems to be misplaced and unhelpful to multistakeholder dialog and governance. (OK to be fair JNC is in good company picking on Amazon, since like JNC, Wall Street is also giving Amazon a hard time of late, as are European publishers Hachette and Springer who are also managing to push back against Amazon themselves. Anyway, this anti-Amazon obsession of some is but a sideshow/distraction to consideration of broader Internet governance issues and should therefore carry limited weight in IGC's own considerations, although of course everyone is free to voice whatever views they wish, whether of Amazon or something more relevant to the issues at hand. 4. Last but not least, the historical triumph of - cgi.br and ICANN coopting WEF - to facilitate industry engagement in broader IG policy issues discussions and implementations should be recognized for what it is, and not mistaken for a sign of the failure but rather is a mark of success/the mainstreaming of Internet governance, as matters of truly global Import and requiring truly global solutions. Sent from Windows Mail From: Nnenna Nwakanma Sent: ‎Sunday‎, ‎November‎ ‎23‎, ‎2014 ‎10‎:‎42‎ ‎PM To: It is Monday 3:40 AM GMT. I am STILL in favour of IGC engaging with NMI. Nnenna On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Sivasubramanian M > wrote: Dear David Cake, On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:47 AM, David Cake > wrote: Siva, there is a big difference between including WEF in the process, and having them run the process by their own rules. I *welcome* the involvement of WEF in open, participatory, multi-stakeholder spaces - they are in a good position to eloquently express some of the positions of the commercial sector. Often, commercial representatives within IG processes often represent small sectors of the commercial world with very strong biases towards particular issues (such as telcos and copyright cartels), WEF might be able to provide a broader commercial perspective, and maybe commercial representation in IG spaces might not be quite so dominated by a small cabal. And note, welcoming the involvement of such organisations is not the same as having sympathy for their policy positions and actions, simply I'd rather debate those positions in an open, transparent, multi-stakeholder fora, rather than have to battle covert lobbying and decision making in closed or opaque fora in which CS has no voice. But I *oppose* considering WEF processes as equivalent to open multi-stakeholder ones in legitimacy. WEFs own processes are not open, they are strictly gatekeepered. And they are commercial led processes, with commercial goals. WEF is, of course, welcome to keep doing those things, but such processes should not be considered legitimate means of producing multi-stakeholder transnational consensus. And this NMI process certainly started with assumptions that reflect the problems with WEF processes, such as choosing the CS sector representatives that the WEF wanted. 1. NETmundial is not in any way 'folded into' the WEF, so it does not become part of WEF. WEF is to be seen as an organization that has joined other organizations in this initiative. WEF processes may not be open, (it is upto the WEF to decide on its own style of managing their business forum), but as a participant of the NETmundial Initiative, WEF may not overwhelm this process with its own style. 2. NETMundial Initiative is a multi-stakeholder process where each stakeholder group would balance the other groups. ​If the initial NMI processes weren't perfect, I would rather consider it not so well thought of - in its early stages. As Harmut Glaser says, "It is up for the community to transform NMI into something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG in full respects of the principles enshrined in the NETmundial declaration. ​"​ Sivasubramanian M So, yes, bringing in the WEF can be considered a positive in some ways - but not in the way the NMI process has gone so far. David On 19 Nov 2014, at 5:21 pm, Sivasubramanian M > wrote: Dear Guru, ​(You (Guru) said: ​ WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated work also is structuring our participation in the information society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global surveillance ​If such as strong generalization of big business is to be accepted as fair and valid, then all those who subscribe to such a generalization may have to go back to the WSIS declarations and summarily exclude Business as a Stakeholder group, and then declare that Internet Governance ought to be a process with two stakeholder groups - Government + Civil Society. No, no, on second thoughts I see your reference to Snowden and USG+, so the Civil Society could exclude Government from Internet Governance, and declare that Internet Governance must be reinvented as a single stakeholder group process, with Civil Society as the only stakeholder group. Seriously, i f WSIS had committed to build a " people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society ​", what happens to inclusiveness and development with such a position on Big Business? ​ And, why this hatred for big business? Most progress in this world has happened because of enterprise, much more because of business than because of Government. Granted, some of the information technology big businesses have worked with Governments on surveillance designs, and even there, we do not know how of much of such cooperation came out of a desire for profit and how much of it was forced by arm-twisting or by milder pressures in so many subtle and imaginative ways. Irrespective of how WEF's role has been articulated at the moment, it is a very positive development to bring in the WEF . ​ WEF participation suddenly expands business participation to a world of business outside the IT sector, so WEF's attention to IG issues might by itself act as a balancing influence within the corporate world, because many of these Big Businesses are Internet "users" themselves. ​Some of these Big Businesses are possibly charitable in unknown ways. What is needed here is strong support at the moment, and w e could ​eventually ​ work towards a greater balance across stakeholder groups.​ ​ Sivasubramanian M On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Guru > wrote: Dear Mawaki I would like to cite from two sources: A. WSIS Declaration of Principles - http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html (the very first two clauses) 1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world*, *assembled in Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 2. Our challenge* is to harness the potential of information and communication technology to promote the development goals of the Millennium Declaration, namely the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; achievement of universal primary education; promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women; reduction of child mortality; improvement of maternal health; to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring environmental sustainability; and development of global partnerships for development for the attainment of a more peaceful, just and prosperous world. We also reiterate our commitment to the achievement of sustainable development and agreed development goals, as contained in the Johannesburg Declaration and Plan of Implementation and the Monterrey Consensus, and other outcomes of relevant United Nations Summits. I now will cite from the WEF site - http://www.weforum.org/our-members Begin Our Members The World Economic Forum is a membership organization. Our Members comprise 1,000 of the world’s top corporations, global enterprises usually with more than US$ 5 billion in turnover. These enterprises rank among the top companies within their industry and play a leading role in shaping the future of their industry and region. Some of our Member companies join the Forum’s Strategic and Industry Partnership communities, which are designed to deepen their engagement with the Forum’s events, project and initiatives. The Forum’s Members are at the heart of all our activities. End It is clear that WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated work also is structuring our participation in the information society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global surveillance, which helps them in their goals of political-economic domination / colonisation Participating in forums anchored in such a space will only legitimise their power. I am clear that IGC should not participate in the NMI. thanks and regards Guru Gurumurthy Kasinathan Director, IT for Change In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC www.ITforChange.Net| Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890 http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum On Tuesday 18 November 2014 05:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Dear All, > > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't repeat > the background details. In the middle of the night last night, before > hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing catch-up with > deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI > Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, they are > willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the NMI > Coordination Council. > > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership of CSCG > member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI process or > not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations we've been > having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and with the > membership of our respective organizations.) After this we should be > able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position about > our participation in the NMI process. > > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be brief. > State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement and, if > you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you if you > could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph (as we > just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see what I > mean.) > > Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sun Nov 23 23:37:25 2014 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 04:37:25 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> <5471BC3C.9010602@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: This is the kind of drivel that is more likely to make people support NMI than oppose it. Another clarification with regard to Internet governance is needed for the period in which Lula presided Brazil, there was a Brazilian multilateral diplomatic position, which did not accept the Icann multistakeholdism. MM: Yes, they were locked in the mentality of the past. They did not understand the Internet and the more distributed governance models emerging globally. It must be said that President Dilma Rousseffi, the opening of the 68th General Assembly of the United Nations on 24 September 2013, held in the Brazilian diplomatic tradition one multilateralist discourse, which advocated a democratic governance, multilateral and open. What MM: “multilateral” meaning, “one country one vote,” which is of course extremely undemocratic. Because it means not only that all the diversity within each nation-state is unrepresented, but also that undemocratic states have as much voting power as democratic ones. No thank you! happened was a maneuver performed by the CGI-Br members to break the diplomatic tradition of Brazil and make a meeting coordinated by ICANN and I * that began to adopt multistakeholdist ideology in the Sao Paulo meeting, the NetMundial. MM: Yes, Brazil’s government seemed to (wisely) move toward acceptance of a multi-stakeholder approach. To dismiss this as a “maneuver” by CGI.br (I guess they are not true Brazilians) seems to be a denial of reality. Or are you asserting that President Rousseff walked into the meeting completely ignorant of what was going on? But OK, duly noted: Mr. Pires joins Russia and Cuba in dissent against the Netmundial meeting. The meeting failed when not discussed the policies to fight the mass surveillance carried out by the US, when not produced a single line on the asymmetric model for the roots server system, when not opted to set a clear policy favorable to net neutrality. MM: I was there, and recall many discussions of mass surveillance. And the attacks on the unilateral approach to the DNS were mooted by the NTIA announcement that they would end it. There were no discussions of how to end it, but if you were paying attention there were many discussions of what should replace it. To overcome the multistakeholdist ideology of NetMundial Iniciative, civil society organizations (as JNC), social movements in networks and public and private actors need to engage in fights and discussions to build a new model of IG, which guarantee: a) a worldwide organization for Internet, that really represents the interests of all nation states MM: Wonderful. So it is not the people we want to represent, or even Internet users and suppliers, but “nation-states?” and to ensure net neutrality and respect the Internet as a common good; b) a worldwide Internet statement that has as principle the protection of privacy, freedom of expression and to promote free and universal access to the Internet and free software; c) a court with international MM: …because, as we know, nation-states are so devoted to freedom of expression, privacy and free software! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 24 00:06:06 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 21:06:06 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] Technology set journalism free, now new platforms are in control In-Reply-To: <59BF9CE1-613D-41D3-9E62-C36704C4AACE@warpspeed.com> References: <59BF9CE1-613D-41D3-9E62-C36704C4AACE@warpspeed.com> Message-ID: <013101d007a4$5af15220$10d3f660$@gmail.com> According to this article below our civil society free speech warriors who are so concerned to keep governments at bay may just be missing the bigger picture, but I'm sure they will have an excellent chance to be brought up to speed in their multistakeholder NMI canoodling with the likes of Facebook and Twitter. M -----Original Message----- From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On Behalf Of Dewayne Hendricks Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 5:51 AM To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Technology set journalism free, now new platforms are in control Technology set journalism free, now new platforms are in control By Mathew Ingram Nov 22 2014 Emily Bell, the former Guardian digital editor who now runs the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, gave a speech recently at the Reuters Institute in the UK about the crossroads at which journalism finds itself today. It's a place where media and journalism - and in fact speech of all kinds - has never been more free, but also paradoxically one in which speech is increasingly controlled by privately-run platforms like Twitter and Facebook. I was glad to see Emily addressing this issue, because it's something I've written about a number of times - both in the context of Twitter'scommitment to being the "free speech wing of the free-speech party," and also in the context of Facebook's dominance of the news and how its algorithm can distort that news in ways we still don't really appreciate or understand, because it is a black box. "Today. we have reached a point of transition where news spaces are no longer owned by newsmakers. The press is no longer in charge of the free press and has lost control of the main conduits through which stories reach audiences. The public sphere is now operated by a small number of private companies, based in Silicon Valley." Free speech vs. profit As Emily pointed out, it's a serious issue not just for journalists or the media but for society as a whole to have "our free speech standards, our reporting tools and publishing rules set by unaccountable software companies." Although these platforms often say they are in favor of free speech and other principles, as Twitter does, at the end of the day they are profit-oriented public companies who must pursue certain ends in order to generate revenue. There's also a certain tendency on the part of these platforms and their executives to deny that they act in any kind of editorial role or perform any kind of journalistic function, when they clearly do. In an interview with the New York Times, the Facebook executive in charge of the main news feed said he doesn't think of himself as an editor - and yet, algorithms involve editorial choices of what to include and what to leave out, even if Facebook and other companies don't want to admit it. "No other single branded platform in the history of journalism has had the concentration of power and attention that Facebook enjoys. If one believes the numbers attached to Facebook, then the world's most powerful news executive is Greg Marra, the product manager for the Facebook News Feed. He is 26." This power is often exercised in disturbing ways: Facebook repeatedly removes content that doesn't meet its standards, but often doesn't say why - and in some cases this can affect the historical record of important events, such as the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons against its own people, as the investigative blogger Brown Moses has described a number of times. [snip] Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Nov 24 00:10:17 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 10:40:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] Technology set journalism free, now new platforms are in control In-Reply-To: <013101d007a4$5af15220$10d3f660$@gmail.com> References: <59BF9CE1-613D-41D3-9E62-C36704C4AACE@warpspeed.com> <013101d007a4$5af15220$10d3f660$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <149e0350ef0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Ah yes so you say you're missing the bigger picture? Or don't you try to keep the governments at bay from infringing on privacy? Which is it? On November 24, 2014 10:36:44 AM "michael gurstein" wrote: > According to this article below our civil society free speech warriors who > are so concerned to keep governments at bay may just be missing the bigger > picture, but I'm sure they will have an excellent chance to be brought up to > speed in their multistakeholder NMI canoodling with the likes of Facebook > and Twitter. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On Behalf > Of Dewayne Hendricks > Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 5:51 AM > To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net > Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Technology set journalism free, now new platforms are > in control > > Technology set journalism free, now new platforms are in control By Mathew > Ingram Nov 22 2014 > rms-are-in-control/> > > Emily Bell, the former Guardian digital editor who now runs the Tow Center > for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, gave a speech recently at the > Reuters Institute in the UK about the crossroads at which journalism finds > itself today. It's a place where media and journalism - and in fact speech > of all kinds - has never been more free, but also paradoxically one in which > speech is increasingly controlled by privately-run platforms like Twitter > and Facebook. > > I was glad to see Emily addressing this issue, because it's something I've > written about a number of times - both in the context of Twitter'scommitment > to being the "free speech wing of the free-speech party," and also in the > context of Facebook's dominance of the news and how its algorithm can > distort that news in ways we still don't really appreciate or understand, > because it is a black box. > > "Today. we have reached a point of transition where news spaces are no > longer owned by newsmakers. The press is no longer in charge of the free > press and has lost control of the main conduits through which stories reach > audiences. The public sphere is now operated by a small number of private > companies, based in Silicon Valley." > > Free speech vs. profit > > As Emily pointed out, it's a serious issue not just for journalists or the > media but for society as a whole to have "our free speech standards, our > reporting tools and publishing rules set by unaccountable software > companies." Although these platforms often say they are in favor of free > speech and other principles, as Twitter does, at the end of the day they are > profit-oriented public companies who must pursue certain ends in order to > generate revenue. > > There's also a certain tendency on the part of these platforms and their > executives to deny that they act in any kind of editorial role or perform > any kind of journalistic function, when they clearly do. In an interview > with the New York Times, the Facebook executive in charge of the main news > feed said he doesn't think of himself as an editor - and yet, algorithms > involve editorial choices of what to include and what to leave out, even if > Facebook and other companies don't want to admit it. > > "No other single branded platform in the history of journalism has had the > concentration of power and attention that Facebook enjoys. If one believes > the numbers attached to Facebook, then the world's most powerful news > executive is Greg Marra, the product manager for the Facebook News Feed. He > is 26." > > This power is often exercised in disturbing ways: Facebook repeatedly > removes content that doesn't meet its standards, but often doesn't say why - > and in some cases this can affect the historical record of important events, > such as the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons against its own > people, as the investigative blogger Brown Moses has described a number of > times. > > [snip] > > Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Nov 24 02:59:35 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 08:59:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: At 02:23 23/11/2014, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >Hi all, >Remember WSIS. Brazil was the driving force in putting up the group >of like minded countries. When final negotiation arrived, Brazil >leadership evaporated. One could presume that they did not have the >capacity to resist strong US arm twisting. Louis, I fully agree with this. The "US business predator strategy" is certainly the right word. I feel we see an ISOC/USG disagreement with WEF/ICANN over the speed and the kind of control, ISOC/USG (Lynn St-Amour/Don Tapscott - http://gsnetworks.org/) seem to wish to weave an US structured accountability network, while WEF/ICANN seem to want to retain a status-quo. >NetMundial was a similar scenario. The high level committee members >never got any contact from the brazilian chair. ICANN had already taken over. > >This WEF/ICANN nebulous gobbledygook smacks of another railroading >to capture some opponents to the US business predator strategy. >Let's see what happens to Brazil. Let not put all our eggs in the same basket. As long as we cannot have a CS basket to be present in the Gov type basket (US/ISOC/FCC) and the Business type basket (WEF/ICANN/Rosetta) is a good thing. May I also remind the https://www.publicknowledge.org/assets/uploads/documents/APPROVED-MARCO-CIVIL-MAY-2014.pdf link to the bilingual version of the Marco Civil law? Now, I feel - from studying some Brazilean initiatives such as the Rio's ITS - that Brazilean technologists are more often lawyers than free open software developpers. So they are better at getting political positions/agreements than at technologically settling it what is surprising due to the level reached by the Brazilean software. This another reason for me to plea for a Libre/CS cooperation. jfc > . >Louis >- - - > >On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 11:34 PM, ><parminder at itforchange.net> wrote: >Dear members of CGI.Br and signatories of the appeal for support to the >ICANN-WEF global IG Initiative; >[snip] > >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 jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Nov 24 03:13:43 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 09:13:43 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> <5471BC3C.9010602@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: At 05:37 24/11/2014, Milton L Mueller wrote: >MM: because, as we know, nation-states are so >devoted to freedom of expression, privacy and free software! Please spare US this State Department rant. Nation-States are most of us (*) who pay taxes for our Govs to be protect from the possible negative effects of NTIA e-dominion to FCC e-colonization transition under technical/commercial status-quo. We fully understand that US/OECD being in multilateral and demographic minority at ITU, multistakeholders is an interesting concept to use. However it MUST NOT be based upon mutual money selection and MUST be totally/globally inclusive and respectfull. This means that every tax-payers and Govs mUSt be equally respected. jfc (*) the US actually are 50 nation-states under constitutional multi-lateral control. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joao.caribe at me.com Mon Nov 24 03:32:15 2014 From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?utf-8?Q? Jo=C3=A3o_Carlos_R._Carib=C3=A9 ?=) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 06:32:15 -0200 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <3D1E1CA9-1F08-4EC0-891C-4C39E3953A0D@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <36624CD6-E5B1-4261-803A-890E03B46311@me.com> +1 Monday 6:30AM BRT João Carlos R. Caribé (021)4042 7727 (021)98761 1967 Skype joaocaribe Enviado via iPhone > Em 24/11/2014, às 01:41, Nnenna Nwakanma escreveu: > > It is Monday 3:40 AM GMT. > > I am STILL in favour of IGC engaging with NMI. > > Nnenna > >> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: >> Dear David Cake, >> >> >>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:47 AM, David Cake wrote: >>> Siva, there is a big difference between including WEF in the process, and having them run the process by their own rules. >>> >>> I *welcome* the involvement of WEF in open, participatory, multi-stakeholder spaces - they are in a good position to eloquently express some of the positions of the commercial sector. Often, commercial representatives within IG processes often represent small sectors of the commercial world with very strong biases towards particular issues (such as telcos and copyright cartels), WEF might be able to provide a broader commercial perspective, and maybe commercial representation in IG spaces might not be quite so dominated by a small cabal. And note, welcoming the involvement of such organisations is not the same as having sympathy for their policy positions and actions, simply I'd rather debate those positions in an open, transparent, multi-stakeholder fora, rather than have to battle covert lobbying and decision making in closed or opaque fora in which CS has no voice. >>> But I *oppose* considering WEF processes as equivalent to open multi-stakeholder ones in legitimacy. WEFs own processes are not open, they are strictly gatekeepered. And they are commercial led processes, with commercial goals. WEF is, of course, welcome to keep doing those things, but such processes should not be considered legitimate means of producing multi-stakeholder transnational consensus. And this NMI process certainly started with assumptions that reflect the problems with WEF processes, such as choosing the CS sector representatives that the WEF wanted. >> >> >> >> 1. NETmundial is not in any way 'folded into' the WEF, so it does not become part of WEF. WEF is to be seen as an organization that has joined other organizations in this initiative. WEF processes may not be open, (it is upto the WEF to decide on its own style of managing their business forum), but as a participant of the NETmundial Initiative, WEF may not overwhelm this process with its own style. >> >> 2. NETMundial Initiative is a multi-stakeholder process where each stakeholder group would balance the other groups. ​If the initial NMI processes weren't perfect, I would rather consider it not so well thought of - in its early stages. >> >> As Harmut Glaser says, "It is up for the community to transform NMI into something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG in full respects of the principles enshrined in the NETmundial declaration.​"​ >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> >>> >>> So, yes, bringing in the WEF can be considered a positive in some ways - but not in the way the NMI process has gone so far. >>> >>> >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 19 Nov 2014, at 5:21 pm, Sivasubramanian M wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Guru, >>>> >>>>> ​(You (Guru) said: ​WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated work also is structuring our participation in the information society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global surveillance >>>> >>>> ​If such as strong generalization of big business is to be accepted as fair and valid, then all those who subscribe to such a generalization may have to go back to the WSIS declarations and summarily exclude Business as a Stakeholder group, and then declare that Internet Governance ought to be a process with two stakeholder groups - Government + Civil Society. No, no, on second thoughts I see your reference to Snowden and USG+, so the Civil Society could exclude Government from Internet Governance, and declare that Internet Governance must be reinvented as a single stakeholder group process, with Civil Society as the only stakeholder group. >>>> >>>> Seriously, if WSIS had committed to build a "people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society​", what happens to inclusiveness and development with such a position on Big Business? ​ >>>> >>>> And, why this hatred for big business? Most progress in this world has happened because of enterprise, much more because of business than because of Government. Granted, some of the information technology big businesses have worked with Governments on surveillance designs, and even there, we do not know how of much of such cooperation came out of a desire for profit and how much of it was forced by arm-twisting or by milder pressures in so many subtle and imaginative ways. >>>> >>>> Irrespective of how WEF's role has been articulated at the moment, it is a very positive development to bring in the WEF. ​WEF participation suddenly expands business participation to a world of business outside the IT sector, so WEF's attention to IG issues might by itself act as a balancing influence within the corporate world, because many of these Big Businesses are Internet "users" themselves. ​Some of these Big Businesses are possibly charitable in unknown ways. What is needed here is strong support at the moment, and we could ​eventually ​work towards a greater balance across stakeholder groups.​ ​ >>>> >>>> Sivasubramanian M >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Guru wrote: >>>>> Dear Mawaki >>>>> >>>>> I would like to cite from two sources: >>>>> >>>>> A. WSIS Declaration of Principles - http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html (the very first two clauses) >>>>> >>>>> 1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world*, *assembled in Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>>>> 2. Our challenge* is to harness the potential of information and communication technology to promote the development goals of the Millennium Declaration, namely the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; achievement of universal primary education; promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women; reduction of child mortality; improvement of maternal health; to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring environmental sustainability; and development of global partnerships for development for the attainment of a more peaceful, just and prosperous world. We also reiterate our commitment to the achievement of sustainable development and agreed development goals, as contained in the Johannesburg Declaration and Plan of Implementation and the Monterrey Consensus, and other outcomes of relevant United Nations Summits. >>>>> >>>>> I now will cite from the WEF site - http://www.weforum.org/our-members >>>>> >>>>> Begin >>>>> Our Members >>>>> The World Economic Forum is a membership organization. Our Members comprise 1,000 of the world’s top corporations, global enterprises usually with more than US$ 5 billion in turnover. These enterprises rank among the top companies within their industry and play a leading role in shaping the future of their industry and region. Some of our Member companies join the Forum’s Strategic and Industry Partnership communities, which are designed to deepen their engagement with the Forum’s events, project and initiatives. The Forum’s Members are at the heart of all our activities. >>>>> End >>>>> >>>>> It is clear that WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated work also is structuring our participation in the information society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global surveillance, which helps them in their goals of political-economic domination / colonisation >>>>> >>>>> Participating in forums anchored in such a space will only legitimise their power. I am clear that IGC should not participate in the NMI. >>>>> >>>>> thanks and regards >>>>> Guru >>>>> >>>>> Gurumurthy Kasinathan >>>>> Director, IT for Change >>>>> In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC >>>>> www.ITforChange.Net| Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890 >>>>> http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday 18 November 2014 05:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >>>>> > Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't >>>>> repeat >>>>> >>>>> > the background details. In the middle of the night last >>>>> night, before >>>>> >>>>> > hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing >>>>> catch-up with >>>>> >>>>> > deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI >>>>> >>>>> > Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, >>>>> they are >>>>> >>>>> > willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the >>>>> NMI >>>>> >>>>> > Coordination Council. >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership >>>>> of CSCG >>>>> >>>>> > member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI >>>>> process or >>>>> >>>>> > not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations >>>>> we've been >>>>> >>>>> > having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and >>>>> with the >>>>> >>>>> > membership of our respective organizations.) After this we >>>>> should be >>>>> >>>>> > able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position >>>>> about >>>>> >>>>> > our participation in the NMI process. >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be >>>>> brief. >>>>> >>>>> > State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement >>>>> and, if >>>>> >>>>> > you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you >>>>> if you >>>>> >>>>> > could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph >>>>> (as we >>>>> >>>>> > just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see >>>>> what I >>>>> >>>>> > mean.) >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Mon Nov 24 04:21:41 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 10:21:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <3D1E1CA9-1F08-4EC0-891C-4C39E3953A0D@difference.com.au> , Message-ID: <5472F8A5.5030406@wzb.eu> I completely agree with Lee's conclusions. Let's put aside our underdog attitude for a moment and think about projects that we could advance with the help of this new platform. Here at #Afrisig2014, we have discussed some ideas about evolving the summer school model, developing a more general curriculum, put together textbooks and stuff like that. (For clarification, I am not applying for a seat on any NMI council, and my personal career does not benefit from supporting new IG platforms either.) jeanette Am 24.11.14 05:36, schrieb Lee W McKnight: > I am MORE in favor IGC engaging with NMI because: > > 1. > the rationale and explanations from Carlos Afonso and cgi.br > colleagues are clear and sensible; those who helped pull off > NetMundial have earned IGC’s support > 2. > The views of the I-orgs, who were against IGF before they were for > it (cough cough), are also clear but less convincing, seeing as > those orgs do not claim to be the appropriate venues themselves to > address the range of issues likely to be (in my opinion) brought to > NMI, and offer no alternative. Should NMI prove to be of some merit, > no doubt the I orgs will engage at a later date. > 3. > Likewise, the more JNC has explained its views, the less weight they > hold, seeing as they appear focused on a specifically anti-US big > (internet) business animus , completely neglecting to note the new > giants on the block such as Alibaba's record-setting IPO which has > resulted in a firm that has a market cap far exceeding the Amazon > boogeyman, as well as Walmart's. (not that there is anything wrong > with Alibaba, but obsessively picking on the little guy/small(er) > business - Amazon ; ) - seems to be misplaced and unhelpful to > multistakeholder dialog and governance. (OK to be fair JNC is in > good company picking on Amazon, since like JNC, Wall Street is also > giving Amazon a hard time of late, as are European publishers > Hachette and Springer who are also managing to push back against > Amazon themselves. Anyway, this anti-Amazon obsession of some is but > a sideshow/distraction to consideration of broader Internet > governance issues and should therefore carry limited weight in > IGC's own considerations, although of course everyone is free to > voice whatever views they wish, whether of Amazon or something more > relevant to the issues at hand. > 4. > Last but not least, the historical triumph of - cgi.br and ICANN > coopting WEF - to facilitate industry engagement in broader IG > policy issues discussions and implementations should be recognized > for what it is, and not mistaken for a sign of the failure but > rather is a mark of success/the mainstreaming of Internet > governance, as matters of truly global Import and requiring truly > global solutions. > > > Sent from Windows Mail > > *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma > *Sent:* ‎Sunday‎, ‎November‎ ‎23‎, ‎2014 ‎10‎:‎42‎ ‎PM > *To:* > > It is Monday 3:40 AM GMT. > > I am STILL in favour of IGC engaging with NMI. > > Nnenna > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Sivasubramanian M > wrote: > > Dear David Cake, > > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:47 AM, David Cake > wrote: > > Siva, there is a big difference between including WEF in the > process, and having them run the process by their own rules. > > I *welcome* the involvement of WEF in open, participatory, > multi-stakeholder spaces - they are in a good position to > eloquently express some of the positions of the commercial > sector. Often, commercial representatives within IG processes > often represent small sectors of the commercial world with very > strong biases towards particular issues (such as telcos and > copyright cartels), WEF might be able to provide a broader > commercial perspective, and maybe commercial representation in > IG spaces might not be quite so dominated by a small cabal. And > note, welcoming the involvement of such organisations is not the > same as having sympathy for their policy positions and actions, > simply I'd rather debate those positions in an open, > transparent, multi-stakeholder fora, rather than have to battle > covert lobbying and decision making in closed or opaque fora in > which CS has no voice. > > But I *oppose* considering WEF processes as equivalent to open > multi-stakeholder ones in legitimacy. WEFs own processes are not > open, they are strictly gatekeepered. And they are commercial > led processes, with commercial goals. WEF is, of course, welcome > to keep doing those things, but such processes should not be > considered legitimate means of producing multi-stakeholder > transnational consensus. And this NMI process certainly started > with assumptions that reflect the problems with WEF processes, > such as choosing the CS sector representatives that the WEF wanted. > > > > 1. NETmundial is not in any way 'folded into' the WEF, so it does > not become part of WEF. WEF is to be seen as an organization that > has joined other organizations in this initiative. WEF processes may > not be open, (it is upto the WEF to decide on its own style of > managing their business forum), but as a participant of the > NETmundial Initiative, WEF may not overwhelm this process with its > own style. > > 2. NETMundial Initiative is a multi-stakeholder process where each > stakeholder group would balance the other groups. ​If the initial > NMI processes weren't perfect, I would rather consider it not so > well thought of - in its early stages. > > As Harmut Glaser says, "It is up for the community to transform NMI > into something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG > in full respects of the principles enshrined in the NETmundial > declaration. > ​"​ > > Sivasubramanian M > > > So, yes, bringing in the WEF can be considered a positive in > some ways - but not in the way the NMI process has gone so far. > > > > David > > > > On 19 Nov 2014, at 5:21 pm, Sivasubramanian M > > wrote: > > Dear Guru, > > ​(You (Guru) said: ​ > WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen > the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS > Declaration of Principles from the activities of > transnational corporations. Apart from using/monetising > our data for their commercial gains in > authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their > unregulated work also is structuring our participation > in the information society in many unhealthy ways. > Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are > in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary > programme of global surveillance > > > ​If such as strong generalization of big business is to be > accepted as fair and valid, then all those who subscribe to > such a generalization may have to go back to the WSIS > declarations and summarily exclude Business as a Stakeholder > group, and then declare that Internet Governance ought to be > a process with two stakeholder groups - Government + Civil > Society. No, no, on second thoughts I see your reference to > Snowden and USG+, so the Civil Society could exclude > Government from Internet Governance, and declare that > Internet Governance must be reinvented as a single > stakeholder group process, with Civil Society as the only > stakeholder group. > > Seriously, i > f WSIS had committed to build a " > people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented > Information Society > ​", what happens to inclusiveness and development with such > a position on Big Business? ​ > > > And, why this hatred for big business? Most progress in this > world has happened because of enterprise, much more because > of business than because of Government. Granted, some of > the information technology big businesses have worked with > Governments on surveillance designs, and even there, we do > not know how of much of such cooperation came out of a > desire for profit and how much of it was forced by > arm-twisting or by milder pressures in so many subtle and > imaginative ways. > > Irrespective of how WEF's role has been articulated at the > moment, it is a very positive development to bring in the WEF > . > ​ > WEF participation suddenly expands business participation to > a world of business outside the IT sector, so WEF's > attention to IG issues might by itself act as a balancing > influence within the corporate world, because many of these > Big Businesses are Internet "users" themselves. > ​Some of these Big Businesses are possibly charitable in > unknown ways. What is needed here is strong support at the > moment, and w > e could > ​eventually ​ > work towards a greater balance across stakeholder groups.​ > ​ > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Guru > wrote: > > Dear Mawaki > > I would like to cite from two sources: > > A. WSIS Declaration of Principles - > http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html > (the very first two clauses) > > 1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world*, > *assembled in Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the > first phase of the World Summit on the Information > Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to > build a people-centred, inclusive and > development-oriented Information Society, where everyone > can create, access, utilize and share information and > knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples > to achieve their full potential in promoting their > sustainable development and improving their quality of > life, premised on the purposes and principles of the > Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and > upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > 2. Our challenge* is to harness the potential of > information and communication technology to promote the > development goals of the Millennium Declaration, namely > the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; > achievement of universal primary education; promotion of > gender equality and empowerment of women; reduction of > child mortality; improvement of maternal health; to > combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring > environmental sustainability; and development of global > partnerships for development for the attainment of a > more peaceful, just and prosperous world. We also > reiterate our commitment to the achievement of > sustainable development and agreed development goals, as > contained in the Johannesburg Declaration and Plan of > Implementation and the Monterrey Consensus, and other > outcomes of relevant United Nations Summits. > > I now will cite from the WEF site - > http://www.weforum.org/our-members > > Begin > Our Members > The World Economic Forum is a membership organization. > Our Members comprise 1,000 of the world’s top > corporations, global enterprises usually with more than > US$ 5 billion in turnover. These enterprises rank among > the top companies within their industry and play a > leading role in shaping the future of their industry and > region. Some of our Member companies join the Forum’s > Strategic and Industry Partnership communities, which > are designed to deepen their engagement with the Forum’s > events, project and initiatives. The Forum’s Members are > at the heart of all our activities. > End > > It is clear that WEF is a primarily group of big > businesses. We have seen the increasing danger to the > ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the > activities of transnational corporations. Apart from > using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in > authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their > unregulated work also is structuring our participation > in the information society in many unhealthy ways. > Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are > in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary > programme of global surveillance, which helps them in > their goals of political-economic domination / colonisation > > Participating in forums anchored in such a space will > only legitimise their power. I am clear that IGC should > not participate in the NMI. > > thanks and regards > Guru > > Gurumurthy Kasinathan > Director, IT for Change > In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations > ECOSOC > www.ITforChange.Net | > Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 > 26654134 , 26536890 > http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum > > > > On Tuesday 18 November 2014 05:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't repeat > > the background details. In the middle of the night last night, before > > hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing catch-up with > > deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI > > Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, they are > > willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the NMI > > Coordination Council. > > > > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership of CSCG > > member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI process or > > not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations we've been > > having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and with the > > membership of our respective organizations.) After this we should be > > able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position about > > our participation in the NMI process. > > > > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be brief. > > State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement and, if > > you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you if you > > could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph (as we > > just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see what I > > mean.) > > > > Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. > > > > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Nov 24 04:31:38 2014 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 09:31:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] More Big Brother? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 08:31:19 on Sun, 23 Nov 2014, Deirdre Williams writes >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30166477 >"A law forcing firms to hand details to police identifying who was >using a computer or mobile phone at a given time is to be outlined by >Theresa May. The home secretary said the measure would improve national >security." As far as I can see this is simply replacing the provisions of the European Data Retention Directive (recently declared invalid) with a local law. And it's not about "handing details to the police" (or indeed any other of the many law enforcement organisations), rather it's about logging the session details in case they are asked for later - under laws going back 14 years. I like the bit about dial-up modems and dynamic IP addresses, I wonder how many people remember them? Although perhaps it's really about carrier-grade NAT and the briefing notes have been given a rather 20th Century spin. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Nov 24 04:43:46 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:13:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] More Big Brother? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2F29E813-FEB8-40F5-94AC-F7E8D00828C5@hserus.net> Dialup modems are generally replaced by their modern analogues, 3G and LTE usb sticks --srs (iPad) > On 24-Nov-2014, at 15:01, Roland Perry wrote: > > In message , at 08:31:19 on Sun, 23 Nov 2014, Deirdre Williams writes > >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30166477 > >> "A law forcing firms to hand details to police identifying who was using a computer or mobile phone at a given time is to be outlined by Theresa May. The home secretary said the measure would improve national security." > > As far as I can see this is simply replacing the provisions of the European Data Retention Directive (recently declared invalid) with a local law. > > And it's not about "handing details to the police" (or indeed any other of the many law enforcement organisations), rather it's about logging the session details in case they are asked for later - under laws going back 14 years. > > I like the bit about dial-up modems and dynamic IP addresses, I wonder how many people remember them? Although perhaps it's really about carrier-grade NAT and the briefing notes have been given a rather 20th Century spin. > -- > Roland Perry > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Mon Nov 24 05:02:06 2014 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:02:06 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Eur ean Parliament and Google dominance In-Reply-To: References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: <622539627.6430.1416823326312.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k33> An interesting link ... for once in French - put on your headphones :-)) http://www.zdnet.fr/actualites/le-parlement-europeen-veut-scinder-google-en-deux-39809997.htm   Best regards   Jean-Louis Fullsack   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Nov 24 05:35:21 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:35:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] Moving Foreward into the 2015 Agenda In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <1772746e261a18240cf44a85af7af3b9.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <170887ED-E12C-4CC0-A096-8D953A6BD959@theglobaljournal.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428BC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <8C509691-9049-4CF9-B3EA-D302DAD264EC@gmail.com> Hi > On Nov 22, 2014, at 8:08 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > 1. IGF MAG Meeting in early December in Geneva and preparations for the 10th IGF in Brazil (November 2015); > > [Sala T: I suggest we initiate pointers for our MAG members to raise asap and make a call for comments on the etherpad or mailing list and initiate a thread or continue input into Bill Drake and other's call for input. As a community, we should make a more consolidated stand and submit a proper statement or 3 page submissions on key topics. This can include and involve wider community input and be submitted by our MAG representatives. Priority should be given to this given the short time we have. Share the sentiment but it’s a bit late, the secretariat’s synthesis paper already has been published. http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/documents/contributions/open-consultations/2014-december/408-synthesis-paper-contributions-taking-stock-of-igf-2014-and-looking-forward-to-igf-2015/file Since the IGC no longer has anything to say about the IGF (why bother when ideological pissing matches are just so much more constructive), the only CS input documents it could draw on regarding the broad architecture were those from Jeremy, APC, and CDT. These made many good points, but in the synthesis the notion of implementing the NM statement's recommendations, consistent with what the IGC used to advocate, does not exactly stand out as a focal point for discussion. There is one paragraph that could be referred to and built on in interventions though, should the people participating in next week’s open consultation and MAG meeting wish to coordinate on messaging: "34. It was suggested that, while still maintaining the key characteristic of being an open platform for discussion, the IGF should continue to develop more tangible outcomes, as recommended by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) Working Group on Improvements to the IGF. Some contributions emphasized that the tenth IGF could take a step forward in this direction if it were to practically use designated main sessions, workshops, other sessions or working groups to develop non-binding opinions, recommendations and/or policy principles that stakeholders could use to address currently pressing Internet-related issues. One input suggested that a separate “Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council” could be formed to assess whether a text proposal/policy recommendation(s) discussed within the framework of IGF preparatory work or in the annual meeting itself had reached consensus.” Best Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Nov 24 07:05:03 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 10:05:03 -0200 Subject: [governance] Civil society participation in NMI Coordination committee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54731EEF.5040008@cafonso.ca> Hi MM, my personal comments on your article in IGP regarding NMI. (*) First, "inheritance" of the legacy of NM is open -- the decision makers, the participants in the IG forums and entities, in summa, the communities involved in the processes of developing IG who may want to advance on the roadmap or principles would be the "inheritors", I guess. The legacy is a proposal for worldwide principles and guidelines for a roadmap for these processes. The "inheritors" are not this or that initiative or group or stakeholder in particular. We are all free to have as many initiatives as we wish (as you actually mention later on in your article), and of course be against any of them. Regarding your "mocking", which you are free to do as well of course :), I guess it takes more than IGP mocking anything to abort it... although of course we do need to consider it seriously. Sorry, but the fact that a initiative proposes to form a facilitating group does not automatically imply it being or staying top-down. Actually, I wonder how to you imagine all the entities and forums we have involved with IG today were born? IETF, ICANN, EuroDIG just to name a few just came to be? The actual practice of how the different stakeholders will decide to get involved (if they do) and actually do it will define it -- and may even change its purpose. So far not a single CS name has been nominated by anyone pertaining to the initial group of organizations, and we at CGI.br insist this will not happen, despite gossips to the contrary. I hope you are aware ISOC decided to publish its board declaration without proper bottom-up consultation with its chapters -- which is odd, given that ISOC supposedly tries to do everything in a transparent, bottom-up, multistakeholder fashion. Since then and after criticism from a number of members the CEO has written the ISOC community to say "all doors are open" to rediscuss the issue. Finally, we all know how it started, but it seems not everyone is aware that we (CGI.br) tried hard to reformulate it to make sure we have a chance to build a multistakeholder process much along the way we built it for NETmundial. We consider it to be clearly in a formative stage. If we do not get real multistakeholder support, the initiative as it is proposed today may fail, and we (CGI.br) are clearly prepared to recognize its failure if it comes to this, and maybe end our participation or try to reorient its purpose. fraternal regards --c.a. =========== (*) http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/11/20/nyet-mundial-taming-the-ambitions-of-the-weficanncgi-alliance/ On 11/20/2014 06:31 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > IGP has just published a blog post on the topic referenced above (NMI) > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/11/20/nyet-mundial-taming-the-ambitions-of-the-weficanncgi-alliance/ > > Milton L. Mueller > Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 24 07:41:23 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 06:41:23 -0600 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] Technology set journalism free, now new platforms are in control In-Reply-To: <013101d007a4$5af15220$10d3f660$@gmail.com> References: <59BF9CE1-613D-41D3-9E62-C36704C4AACE@warpspeed.com> <013101d007a4$5af15220$10d3f660$@gmail.com> Message-ID: The article misses the "Big Picture" that people use their Twitters and FBs because they are market 'winners". They aren't mandatory, they are just popular, just like MySpace was 10 years ago. People are still free to communicate via any number of other ways that do not involve a platform. including this list, which I would like to remind you has a set of rules. One of them is to refrain from sending: " Sequences of messages by one or more participants that cause an IGC list to become a hostile environment" I believe your post below is of that nature, and I would ask you to abide by list netiquette. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:06 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > According to this article below our civil society free speech warriors who > are so concerned to keep governments at bay may just be missing the bigger > picture, but I'm sure they will have an excellent chance to be brought up > to > speed in their multistakeholder NMI canoodling with the likes of Facebook > and Twitter. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On > Behalf > Of Dewayne Hendricks > Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 5:51 AM > To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net > Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Technology set journalism free, now new platforms > are > in control > > Technology set journalism free, now new platforms are in control By Mathew > Ingram Nov 22 2014 > < > https://gigaom.com/2014/11/22/technology-set-journalism-free-now-new-platfo > rms-are-in-control/> > > Emily Bell, the former Guardian digital editor who now runs the Tow Center > for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, gave a speech recently at > the > Reuters Institute in the UK about the crossroads at which journalism finds > itself today. It's a place where media and journalism - and in fact speech > of all kinds - has never been more free, but also paradoxically one in > which > speech is increasingly controlled by privately-run platforms like Twitter > and Facebook. > > I was glad to see Emily addressing this issue, because it's something I've > written about a number of times - both in the context of > Twitter'scommitment > to being the "free speech wing of the free-speech party," and also in the > context of Facebook's dominance of the news and how its algorithm can > distort that news in ways we still don't really appreciate or understand, > because it is a black box. > > "Today. we have reached a point of transition where news spaces are no > longer owned by newsmakers. The press is no longer in charge of the free > press and has lost control of the main conduits through which stories reach > audiences. The public sphere is now operated by a small number of private > companies, based in Silicon Valley." > > Free speech vs. profit > > As Emily pointed out, it's a serious issue not just for journalists or the > media but for society as a whole to have "our free speech standards, our > reporting tools and publishing rules set by unaccountable software > companies." Although these platforms often say they are in favor of free > speech and other principles, as Twitter does, at the end of the day they > are > profit-oriented public companies who must pursue certain ends in order to > generate revenue. > > There's also a certain tendency on the part of these platforms and their > executives to deny that they act in any kind of editorial role or perform > any kind of journalistic function, when they clearly do. In an interview > with the New York Times, the Facebook executive in charge of the main news > feed said he doesn't think of himself as an editor - and yet, algorithms > involve editorial choices of what to include and what to leave out, even if > Facebook and other companies don't want to admit it. > > "No other single branded platform in the history of journalism has had the > concentration of power and attention that Facebook enjoys. If one believes > the numbers attached to Facebook, then the world's most powerful news > executive is Greg Marra, the product manager for the Facebook News Feed. He > is 26." > > This power is often exercised in disturbing ways: Facebook repeatedly > removes content that doesn't meet its standards, but often doesn't say why > - > and in some cases this can affect the historical record of important > events, > such as the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons against its own > people, as the investigative blogger Brown Moses has described a number of > times. > > [snip] > > Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Nov 24 07:49:30 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:49:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] Civil society participation in NMI Coordination committee In-Reply-To: <54731EEF.5040008@cafonso.ca> References: <54731EEF.5040008@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <20141124134930.2c00e936@quill> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 10:05:03 -0200 "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > I hope you are aware ISOC decided to publish its board declaration > without proper bottom-up consultation with its chapters -- which is > odd, given that ISOC supposedly tries to do everything in a > transparent, bottom-up, multistakeholder fashion. I'm a member of ISOC and of the Swiss chapter of ISOC, but I haven't seen any significant evidence that the international part of ISOC “supposedly tries to do everything in a transparent, bottom-up, multistakeholder fashion.” Not on this issue, nor on any other issue. The reason why I'm still a member is that in the Swiss chapter things are different, with open and transparent and inclusive discussion in a consensus-oriented way before a decision is taken. Of course that is much easier to achieve in a small national chapter than in an organization as big as the global ISOC. 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 Mon Nov 24 08:56:57 2014 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:56:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] Technology set journalism free, now new platforms are in control In-Reply-To: <013101d007a4$5af15220$10d3f660$@gmail.com> References: <59BF9CE1-613D-41D3-9E62-C36704C4AACE@warpspeed.com> <013101d007a4$5af15220$10d3f660$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <54733929.6080009@digsys.bg> I only wonder when we will begin talking about the "right to not listen" to someone's speeches. Also, this seems to prove that new discoveries are the well forgotten old knowledge. When did those people forget, that "before the Internet", if they wanted to reach auditory outside of their own abilities to communicate (limited individually), they would depend on "privately-run platforms" such as a newspaper, book publisher or a broadcaster? Daniel On 24.11.14 07:06, michael gurstein wrote: > According to this article below our civil society free speech warriors who > are so concerned to keep governments at bay may just be missing the bigger > picture, but I'm sure they will have an excellent chance to be brought up to > speed in their multistakeholder NMI canoodling with the likes of Facebook > and Twitter. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On Behalf > Of Dewayne Hendricks > Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 5:51 AM > To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net > Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Technology set journalism free, now new platforms are > in control > > Technology set journalism free, now new platforms are in control By Mathew > Ingram Nov 22 2014 > rms-are-in-control/> > > Emily Bell, the former Guardian digital editor who now runs the Tow Center > for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, gave a speech recently at the > Reuters Institute in the UK about the crossroads at which journalism finds > itself today. It's a place where media and journalism - and in fact speech > of all kinds - has never been more free, but also paradoxically one in which > speech is increasingly controlled by privately-run platforms like Twitter > and Facebook. > > I was glad to see Emily addressing this issue, because it's something I've > written about a number of times - both in the context of Twitter'scommitment > to being the "free speech wing of the free-speech party," and also in the > context of Facebook's dominance of the news and how its algorithm can > distort that news in ways we still don't really appreciate or understand, > because it is a black box. > > "Today. we have reached a point of transition where news spaces are no > longer owned by newsmakers. The press is no longer in charge of the free > press and has lost control of the main conduits through which stories reach > audiences. The public sphere is now operated by a small number of private > companies, based in Silicon Valley." > > Free speech vs. profit > > As Emily pointed out, it's a serious issue not just for journalists or the > media but for society as a whole to have "our free speech standards, our > reporting tools and publishing rules set by unaccountable software > companies." Although these platforms often say they are in favor of free > speech and other principles, as Twitter does, at the end of the day they are > profit-oriented public companies who must pursue certain ends in order to > generate revenue. > > There's also a certain tendency on the part of these platforms and their > executives to deny that they act in any kind of editorial role or perform > any kind of journalistic function, when they clearly do. In an interview > with the New York Times, the Facebook executive in charge of the main news > feed said he doesn't think of himself as an editor - and yet, algorithms > involve editorial choices of what to include and what to leave out, even if > Facebook and other companies don't want to admit it. > > "No other single branded platform in the history of journalism has had the > concentration of power and attention that Facebook enjoys. If one believes > the numbers attached to Facebook, then the world's most powerful news > executive is Greg Marra, the product manager for the Facebook News Feed. He > is 26." > > This power is often exercised in disturbing ways: Facebook repeatedly > removes content that doesn't meet its standards, but often doesn't say why - > and in some cases this can affect the historical record of important events, > such as the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons against its own > people, as the investigative blogger Brown Moses has described a number of > times. > > [snip] > > Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Mon Nov 24 09:28:23 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 10:28:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] Technology set journalism free, now new platforms are in control In-Reply-To: <54733929.6080009@digsys.bg> References: <59BF9CE1-613D-41D3-9E62-C36704C4AACE@warpspeed.com> <013101d007a4$5af15220$10d3f660$@gmail.com> <54733929.6080009@digsys.bg> Message-ID: My perception is that the "right not to listen" has gone the same way as the "right to say no" and the "right to hold an individual opinion". I sincerely, but not too hopefully, would be glad to discover that my perception is incorrect. Deirdre On 24 November 2014 at 09:56, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > I only wonder when we will begin talking about the "right to not listen" > to someone's speeches. > > Also, this seems to prove that new discoveries are the well forgotten > old knowledge. > When did those people forget, that "before the Internet", if they wanted > to reach auditory outside of their own abilities to communicate (limited > individually), they would depend on "privately-run platforms" such as a > newspaper, book publisher or a broadcaster? > > Daniel > > On 24.11.14 07:06, michael gurstein wrote: > > According to this article below our civil society free speech warriors > who > > are so concerned to keep governments at bay may just be missing the > bigger > > picture, but I'm sure they will have an excellent chance to be brought > up to > > speed in their multistakeholder NMI canoodling with the likes of Facebook > > and Twitter. > > > > M > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On > Behalf > > Of Dewayne Hendricks > > Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 5:51 AM > > To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net > > Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Technology set journalism free, now new platforms > are > > in control > > > > Technology set journalism free, now new platforms are in control By > Mathew > > Ingram Nov 22 2014 > > < > https://gigaom.com/2014/11/22/technology-set-journalism-free-now-new-platfo > > rms-are-in-control/> > > > > Emily Bell, the former Guardian digital editor who now runs the Tow > Center > > for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, gave a speech recently at > the > > Reuters Institute in the UK about the crossroads at which journalism > finds > > itself today. It's a place where media and journalism - and in fact > speech > > of all kinds - has never been more free, but also paradoxically one in > which > > speech is increasingly controlled by privately-run platforms like Twitter > > and Facebook. > > > > I was glad to see Emily addressing this issue, because it's something > I've > > written about a number of times - both in the context of > Twitter'scommitment > > to being the "free speech wing of the free-speech party," and also in the > > context of Facebook's dominance of the news and how its algorithm can > > distort that news in ways we still don't really appreciate or understand, > > because it is a black box. > > > > "Today. we have reached a point of transition where news spaces are no > > longer owned by newsmakers. The press is no longer in charge of the free > > press and has lost control of the main conduits through which stories > reach > > audiences. The public sphere is now operated by a small number of private > > companies, based in Silicon Valley." > > > > Free speech vs. profit > > > > As Emily pointed out, it's a serious issue not just for journalists or > the > > media but for society as a whole to have "our free speech standards, our > > reporting tools and publishing rules set by unaccountable software > > companies." Although these platforms often say they are in favor of free > > speech and other principles, as Twitter does, at the end of the day they > are > > profit-oriented public companies who must pursue certain ends in order to > > generate revenue. > > > > There's also a certain tendency on the part of these platforms and their > > executives to deny that they act in any kind of editorial role or perform > > any kind of journalistic function, when they clearly do. In an interview > > with the New York Times, the Facebook executive in charge of the main > news > > feed said he doesn't think of himself as an editor - and yet, algorithms > > involve editorial choices of what to include and what to leave out, even > if > > Facebook and other companies don't want to admit it. > > > > "No other single branded platform in the history of journalism has had > the > > concentration of power and attention that Facebook enjoys. If one > believes > > the numbers attached to Facebook, then the world's most powerful news > > executive is Greg Marra, the product manager for the Facebook News Feed. > He > > is 26." > > > > This power is often exercised in disturbing ways: Facebook repeatedly > > removes content that doesn't meet its standards, but often doesn't say > why - > > and in some cases this can affect the historical record of important > events, > > such as the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons against its own > > people, as the investigative blogger Brown Moses has described a number > of > > times. > > > > [snip] > > > > Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Nov 24 09:42:13 2014 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 14:42:13 +0000 Subject: [governance] More Big Brother? In-Reply-To: <2F29E813-FEB8-40F5-94AC-F7E8D00828C5@hserus.net> References: <2F29E813-FEB8-40F5-94AC-F7E8D00828C5@hserus.net> Message-ID: In message <2F29E813-FEB8-40F5-94AC-F7E8D00828C5 at hserus.net>, at 15:13:46 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >Dialup modems are generally replaced by their modern analogues, 3G and >LTE usb sticks Hence my reference to CGN. But here in the UK dongles are not very popular, although many people access the Internet via equivalent technology built into their SmartPhones. [Most providers ban tethering, just to complete the picture]. R. >> On 24-Nov-2014, at 15:01, Roland Perry >> wrote: >> >> In message >>, >>at 08:31:19 on Sun, 23 Nov 2014, Deirdre Williams >> writes >> >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30166477 >> >>> "A law forcing firms to hand details to police identifying who was >>>using a computer or mobile phone at a given time is to be outlined by >>>Theresa May. The home secretary said the measure would improve >>>national security." >> >> As far as I can see this is simply replacing the provisions of the >>European Data Retention Directive (recently declared invalid) with a >>local law. >> >> And it's not about "handing details to the police" (or indeed any >>other of the many law enforcement organisations), rather it's about >>logging the session details in case they are asked for later - under >>laws going back 14 years. >> >> I like the bit about dial-up modems and dynamic IP addresses, I >>wonder how many people remember them? Although perhaps it's really >>about carrier-grade NAT and the briefing notes have been given a >>rather 20th Century spin. >> -- >> Roland Perry >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Nov 24 10:40:55 2014 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:40:55 +0000 Subject: [governance] Civil society participation in NMI Coordination committee In-Reply-To: <54731EEF.5040008@cafonso.ca> References: <54731EEF.5040008@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <93f68ca64d544da79a289c01d8fd6908@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Carlos I hope that my abstention from NMI is not interpreted as hostility towards CGI.br or to questions about its legitimacy. There is none of that. You are right that before anything can happen someone has to take initiative, and that such initiative is, by definition, taken by specific people without full consultation of everyone about everything. Indeed, Fadi's approach to Brazil that led to the actual Netmundial event was very "top down" but I supported it and so did almost everyone in the NCSG because we realized that an unprecedented opportunity was being seized and a new process was being created that improved things for all of us. Remember, I am advocating abstention from this round of the NMI CC, I am not saying it should be destroyed or shunned forever. I just don't see anything new here. I see the usual suspects that I am already engaged with in ICANN and IGF, plus WEF. If I'm going to work with WEF people I want a better idea of who they are and what their agenda is before I commit myself to an institution in which they are the third leg of the stool. I see the CS people who are already deeply embedded in IGF and ICANN getting excited about this, and I see that ICANN and WEF have reached out to those usual suspects and again I ask, "what's new?" Is this Onenet v 2.0? There's a certain governance fatigue that sets in. "Hey Milton, please devote another 20 hours/week of your time and labor to another organization built upon almost exactly the same rationale as the IGF, so that it can elevate the same voices saying the same things and continue to marginalize you because you're too liberal and oppositional." :-) If you read my blog post you know that my objection was not really the composition of the initiative and only marginally its top-down origins but primarily the idea that its ambitions need to be tamed. If Fadi and WEF want to promote the Ilves report, and not the much better documented and well thought out program emanating from IGP ;-), let them. Just don't let them pretend they are speaking for me, or us. > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] > Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 7:05 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller > Subject: Re: [governance] Civil society participation in NMI Coordination > committee > > Hi MM, my personal comments on your article in IGP regarding NMI. (*) > > First, "inheritance" of the legacy of NM is open -- the decision makers, the > participants in the IG forums and entities, in summa, the communities > involved in the processes of developing IG who may want to advance on the > roadmap or principles would be the "inheritors", I guess. > The legacy is a proposal for worldwide principles and guidelines for a > roadmap for these processes. The "inheritors" are not this or that initiative > or group or stakeholder in particular. We are all free to have as many > initiatives as we wish (as you actually mention later on in your article), and of > course be against any of them. > > Regarding your "mocking", which you are free to do as well of course :), I > guess it takes more than IGP mocking anything to abort it... although of > course we do need to consider it seriously. > > Sorry, but the fact that a initiative proposes to form a facilitating group does > not automatically imply it being or staying top-down. > Actually, I wonder how to you imagine all the entities and forums we have > involved with IG today were born? IETF, ICANN, EuroDIG just to name a few > just came to be? > > The actual practice of how the different stakeholders will decide to get > involved (if they do) and actually do it will define it -- and may even change > its purpose. So far not a single CS name has been nominated by anyone > pertaining to the initial group of organizations, and we at CGI.br insist this > will not happen, despite gossips to the contrary. > > I hope you are aware ISOC decided to publish its board declaration without > proper bottom-up consultation with its chapters -- which is odd, given that > ISOC supposedly tries to do everything in a transparent, bottom-up, > multistakeholder fashion. Since then and after criticism from a number of > members the CEO has written the ISOC community to say "all doors are > open" to rediscuss the issue. > > Finally, we all know how it started, but it seems not everyone is aware that > we (CGI.br) tried hard to reformulate it to make sure we have a chance to > build a multistakeholder process much along the way we built it for > NETmundial. We consider it to be clearly in a formative stage. If we do not > get real multistakeholder support, the initiative as it is proposed today may > fail, and we (CGI.br) are clearly prepared to recognize its failure if it comes to > this, and maybe end our participation or try to reorient its purpose. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > =========== > (*) > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/11/20/nyet-mundial-taming-the- > ambitions-of-the-weficanncgi-alliance/ > > > On 11/20/2014 06:31 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > IGP has just published a blog post on the topic referenced above (NMI) > > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/11/20/nyet-mundial-taming- > the-a > > mbitions-of-the-weficanncgi-alliance/ > > > > Milton L. Mueller > > Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School > > of Information Studies > > http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Mon Nov 24 10:54:27 2014 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:54:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] On positioning within the left-right political spectrum (was Re: URGENT: Last call...) In-Reply-To: <20141122104441.0ad4f08a@quill> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <149c7681318.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <90B1BAF8-41AC-4305-AF25-3EDA377080A9@difference.com.au> <021f01d005af$a95f86d0$fc1e9470$@gmail.com> <20141122104441.0ad4f08a@quill> Message-ID: Hello everyone, after several discussions and ask for clarification, I think we need to be present to avoid the empty chair policy. Obviously everything is not correct according to the rules but our participation will help to clarify any gray areas. 2014-11-22 10:44 UTC+01:00, Norbert Bollow : > On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 06:21:29 +0530 > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> Canting jargon remains canting jargon. I also have a bit of a >> problem with groups having a regressively extreme left ideology >> labeling themselves progressive > > I'm commenting because I read this slur as being directed towards JNC, > where indeed groups who see themselves as progressive are welcome as > members. JNC is however not in any way adopting an extremist ideology or > extremist positions. > > The IGC Charter at http://igcaucus.org/charter which defines this group > here (IGC) speaks twice of “civil society and other progressive groups > or actors”, implying that civil society is supposed to progressive, and > thereby firmly defining IGC as part of the set of groups which see > themselves as progressive. > > Whether this aspect of the IGC Charter still has something to do with > the current reality of IGC, or more broadly with the general state of > civil society specifically in the Internet governance space, is of > course a different question. > > In any case, in terms of the classical left-right political spectrum, > using the term “progressive” as part of a group's self-image does not > mean that the group's positions would necessarily be strictly leftist, > in the sense of the positions being unacceptable to most of those who > see themselves as being firmly democratically centrist. It however > means that the group claims to work towards aims which are generally > acceptable to those who see themselves as progressives, i.e. those at > least a little on the left. > > We define the political identity of JNC as seeking to advance all human > rights, including democracy and economic and social justice, a cause > which unites many who see themselves as progressives and many who see > themselves as democratic centrists. > > Greetings, > Norbert > co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) > http://justnetcoalition,org > > -- *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECICANN/AFRALO Member* *ISOC Member* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Nov 24 14:01:07 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 20:01:07 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Civil society participation in NMI Coordination committee References: <54731EEF.5040008@cafonso.ca> <93f68ca64d544da79a289c01d8fd6908@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Milton, thanks for this clarifying words and also for the clar statement with regard to the role of governments in IG. As you know I like your book "Networks vs. States" and your Meissen lectures because this is the central conflict of today´s discussiony. The probLem is that your recent staments are used by some governments to jusify the opposite you want to achieve. This is really a good (and sad) example of unintended side effeets. Some of your comments that the multistakeholder model does not work within ICANN or Net Munidal have got a lot of support in Russia,, China, Saudi Arabia which argue: Look Milton says multistakehiderism is bad an thatswhy we need intergovernmental mechanisms. I know it is complex. But be careful in what you aer posting. wolfgang Carlos I hope that my abstention from NMI is not interpreted as hostility towards CGI.br or to questions about its legitimacy. There is none of that. You are right that before anything can happen someone has to take initiative, and that such initiative is, by definition, taken by specific people without full consultation of everyone about everything. Indeed, Fadi's approach to Brazil that led to the actual Netmundial event was very "top down" but I supported it and so did almost everyone in the NCSG because we realized that an unprecedented opportunity was being seized and a new process was being created that improved things for all of us. Remember, I am advocating abstention from this round of the NMI CC, I am not saying it should be destroyed or shunned forever. I just don't see anything new here. I see the usual suspects that I am already engaged with in ICANN and IGF, plus WEF. If I'm going to work with WEF people I want a better idea of who they are and what their agenda is before I commit myself to an institution in which they are the third leg of the stool. I see the CS people who are already deeply embedded in IGF and ICANN getting excited about this, and I see that ICANN and WEF have reached out to those usual suspects and again I ask, "what's new?" Is this Onenet v 2.0? There's a certain governance fatigue that sets in. "Hey Milton, please devote another 20 hours/week of your time and labor to another organization built upon almost exactly the same rationale as the IGF, so that it can elevate the same voices saying the same things and continue to marginalize you because you're too liberal and oppositional." :-) If you read my blog post you know that my objection was not really the composition of the initiative and only marginally its top-down origins but primarily the idea that its ambitions need to be tamed. If Fadi and WEF want to promote the Ilves report, and not the much better documented and well thought out program emanating from IGP ;-), let them. Just don't let them pretend they are speaking for me, or us. > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] > Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 7:05 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller > Subject: Re: [governance] Civil society participation in NMI Coordination > committee > > Hi MM, my personal comments on your article in IGP regarding NMI. (*) > > First, "inheritance" of the legacy of NM is open -- the decision makers, the > participants in the IG forums and entities, in summa, the communities > involved in the processes of developing IG who may want to advance on the > roadmap or principles would be the "inheritors", I guess. > The legacy is a proposal for worldwide principles and guidelines for a > roadmap for these processes. The "inheritors" are not this or that initiative > or group or stakeholder in particular. We are all free to have as many > initiatives as we wish (as you actually mention later on in your article), and of > course be against any of them. > > Regarding your "mocking", which you are free to do as well of course :), I > guess it takes more than IGP mocking anything to abort it... although of > course we do need to consider it seriously. > > Sorry, but the fact that a initiative proposes to form a facilitating group does > not automatically imply it being or staying top-down. > Actually, I wonder how to you imagine all the entities and forums we have > involved with IG today were born? IETF, ICANN, EuroDIG just to name a few > just came to be? > > The actual practice of how the different stakeholders will decide to get > involved (if they do) and actually do it will define it -- and may even change > its purpose. So far not a single CS name has been nominated by anyone > pertaining to the initial group of organizations, and we at CGI.br insist this > will not happen, despite gossips to the contrary. > > I hope you are aware ISOC decided to publish its board declaration without > proper bottom-up consultation with its chapters -- which is odd, given that > ISOC supposedly tries to do everything in a transparent, bottom-up, > multistakeholder fashion. Since then and after criticism from a number of > members the CEO has written the ISOC community to say "all doors are > open" to rediscuss the issue. > > Finally, we all know how it started, but it seems not everyone is aware that > we (CGI.br) tried hard to reformulate it to make sure we have a chance to > build a multistakeholder process much along the way we built it for > NETmundial. We consider it to be clearly in a formative stage. If we do not > get real multistakeholder support, the initiative as it is proposed today may > fail, and we (CGI.br) are clearly prepared to recognize its failure if it comes to > this, and maybe end our participation or try to reorient its purpose. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > =========== > (*) > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/11/20/nyet-mundial-taming-the- > ambitions-of-the-weficanncgi-alliance/ > > > On 11/20/2014 06:31 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > IGP has just published a blog post on the topic referenced above (NMI) > > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/11/20/nyet-mundial-taming- > the-a > > mbitions-of-the-weficanncgi-alliance/ > > > > Milton L. Mueller > > Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School > > of Information Studies > > http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Nov 24 14:41:32 2014 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 20:41:32 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Civil society participation in NMI Coordination committee In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <54731EEF.5040008@cafonso.ca> <93f68ca64d544da79a289c01d8fd6908@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi there Wolfgang, May I ask for the sources you are referring to regarding the "unintended side effects"? Sorry for my old journalistic habits. I sincerely regret that you do not share more often such comments made by Russia, China and Saudi Arabia over IG, as you now have a pretty good access to their conclusions on Milton's views. From Milton's good book and critical Meissen lectures to his comments regarding NMI, I am wondering if your message should be read with all of the subtle understatement that it seems to contain.What are the Meissen lectures by the way? Just wondering. Probably Milton is the only one to fully read entre les lignes here. Sources or links most welcome. Thanks JC Le 24 nov. 2014 à 20:01, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit : > > Hi Milton, > > thanks for this clarifying words and also for the clar statement with regard to the role of governments in IG. As you know I like your book "Networks vs. States" and your Meissen lectures because this is the central conflict of today´s discussiony. The probLem is that your recent staments are used by some governments to jusify the opposite you want to achieve. This is really a good (and sad) example of unintended side effeets. Some of your comments that the multistakeholder model does not work within ICANN or Net Munidal have got a lot of support in Russia,, China, Saudi Arabia which argue: Look Milton says multistakehiderism is bad an thatswhy we need intergovernmental mechanisms. > > I know it is complex. But be careful in what you aer posting. > > wolfgang > > > Carlos > I hope that my abstention from NMI is not interpreted as hostility towards CGI.br or to questions about its legitimacy. There is none of that. > > You are right that before anything can happen someone has to take initiative, and that such initiative is, by definition, taken by specific people without full consultation of everyone about everything. Indeed, Fadi's approach to Brazil that led to the actual Netmundial event was very "top down" but I supported it and so did almost everyone in the NCSG because we realized that an unprecedented opportunity was being seized and a new process was being created that improved things for all of us. > > Remember, I am advocating abstention from this round of the NMI CC, I am not saying it should be destroyed or shunned forever. I just don't see anything new here. I see the usual suspects that I am already engaged with in ICANN and IGF, plus WEF. If I'm going to work with WEF people I want a better idea of who they are and what their agenda is before I commit myself to an institution in which they are the third leg of the stool. I see the CS people who are already deeply embedded in IGF and ICANN getting excited about this, and I see that ICANN and WEF have reached out to those usual suspects and again I ask, "what's new?" > > Is this Onenet v 2.0? There's a certain governance fatigue that sets in. "Hey Milton, please devote another 20 hours/week of your time and labor to another organization built upon almost exactly the same rationale as the IGF, so that it can elevate the same voices saying the same things and continue to marginalize you because you're too liberal and oppositional." :-) > > If you read my blog post you know that my objection was not really the composition of the initiative and only marginally its top-down origins but primarily the idea that its ambitions need to be tamed. If Fadi and WEF want to promote the Ilves report, and not the much better documented and well thought out program emanating from IGP ;-), let them. Just don't let them pretend they are speaking for me, or us. > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] >> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 7:05 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller >> Subject: Re: [governance] Civil society participation in NMI Coordination >> committee >> >> Hi MM, my personal comments on your article in IGP regarding NMI. (*) >> >> First, "inheritance" of the legacy of NM is open -- the decision makers, the >> participants in the IG forums and entities, in summa, the communities >> involved in the processes of developing IG who may want to advance on the >> roadmap or principles would be the "inheritors", I guess. >> The legacy is a proposal for worldwide principles and guidelines for a >> roadmap for these processes. The "inheritors" are not this or that initiative >> or group or stakeholder in particular. We are all free to have as many >> initiatives as we wish (as you actually mention later on in your article), and of >> course be against any of them. >> >> Regarding your "mocking", which you are free to do as well of course :), I >> guess it takes more than IGP mocking anything to abort it... although of >> course we do need to consider it seriously. >> >> Sorry, but the fact that a initiative proposes to form a facilitating group does >> not automatically imply it being or staying top-down. >> Actually, I wonder how to you imagine all the entities and forums we have >> involved with IG today were born? IETF, ICANN, EuroDIG just to name a few >> just came to be? >> >> The actual practice of how the different stakeholders will decide to get >> involved (if they do) and actually do it will define it -- and may even change >> its purpose. So far not a single CS name has been nominated by anyone >> pertaining to the initial group of organizations, and we at CGI.br insist this >> will not happen, despite gossips to the contrary. >> >> I hope you are aware ISOC decided to publish its board declaration without >> proper bottom-up consultation with its chapters -- which is odd, given that >> ISOC supposedly tries to do everything in a transparent, bottom-up, >> multistakeholder fashion. Since then and after criticism from a number of >> members the CEO has written the ISOC community to say "all doors are >> open" to rediscuss the issue. >> >> Finally, we all know how it started, but it seems not everyone is aware that >> we (CGI.br) tried hard to reformulate it to make sure we have a chance to >> build a multistakeholder process much along the way we built it for >> NETmundial. We consider it to be clearly in a formative stage. If we do not >> get real multistakeholder support, the initiative as it is proposed today may >> fail, and we (CGI.br) are clearly prepared to recognize its failure if it comes to >> this, and maybe end our participation or try to reorient its purpose. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> =========== >> (*) >> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/11/20/nyet-mundial-taming-the- >> ambitions-of-the-weficanncgi-alliance/ >> >> >> On 11/20/2014 06:31 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> IGP has just published a blog post on the topic referenced above (NMI) >>> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/11/20/nyet-mundial-taming- >> the-a >>> mbitions-of-the-weficanncgi-alliance/ >>> >>> Milton L. Mueller >>> Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School >>> of Information Studies >>> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html >>> >>> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From compsoftnet at gmail.com Mon Nov 24 15:30:11 2014 From: compsoftnet at gmail.com (Akinremi Peter Taiwo) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:30:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <5472F8A5.5030406@wzb.eu> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <3D1E1CA9-1F08-4EC0-891C-4C39E3953A0D@difference.com.au> <5472F8A5.5030406@wzb.eu> Message-ID: WEF can not dominate NMI with their styles so let get involve. On Nov 24, 2014 10:23 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" wrote: > I completely agree with Lee's conclusions. Let's put aside our underdog > attitude for a moment and think about projects that we could advance with > the help of this new platform. > Here at #Afrisig2014, we have discussed some ideas about evolving the > summer school model, developing a more general curriculum, put together > textbooks and stuff like that. > > (For clarification, I am not applying for a seat on any NMI council, and > my personal career does not benefit from supporting new IG platforms > either.) > > jeanette > > Am 24.11.14 05:36, schrieb Lee W McKnight: > >> I am MORE in favor IGC engaging with NMI because: >> >> 1. >> the rationale and explanations from Carlos Afonso and cgi.br >> colleagues are clear and sensible; those who helped pull off >> NetMundial have earned IGC’s support >> 2. >> The views of the I-orgs, who were against IGF before they were for >> it (cough cough), are also clear but less convincing, seeing as >> those orgs do not claim to be the appropriate venues themselves to >> address the range of issues likely to be (in my opinion) brought to >> NMI, and offer no alternative. Should NMI prove to be of some merit, >> no doubt the I orgs will engage at a later date. >> 3. >> Likewise, the more JNC has explained its views, the less weight they >> hold, seeing as they appear focused on a specifically anti-US big >> (internet) business animus , completely neglecting to note the new >> giants on the block such as Alibaba's record-setting IPO which has >> resulted in a firm that has a market cap far exceeding the Amazon >> boogeyman, as well as Walmart's. (not that there is anything wrong >> with Alibaba, but obsessively picking on the little guy/small(er) >> business - Amazon ; ) - seems to be misplaced and unhelpful to >> multistakeholder dialog and governance. (OK to be fair JNC is in >> good company picking on Amazon, since like JNC, Wall Street is also >> giving Amazon a hard time of late, as are European publishers >> Hachette and Springer who are also managing to push back against >> Amazon themselves. Anyway, this anti-Amazon obsession of some is but >> a sideshow/distraction to consideration of broader Internet >> governance issues and should therefore carry limited weight in >> IGC's own considerations, although of course everyone is free to >> voice whatever views they wish, whether of Amazon or something more >> relevant to the issues at hand. >> 4. >> Last but not least, the historical triumph of - cgi.br and ICANN >> coopting WEF - to facilitate industry engagement in broader IG >> policy issues discussions and implementations should be recognized >> for what it is, and not mistaken for a sign of the failure but >> rather is a mark of success/the mainstreaming of Internet >> governance, as matters of truly global Import and requiring truly >> global solutions. >> >> >> Sent from Windows Mail >> >> *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma >> *Sent:* ‎Sunday‎, ‎November‎ ‎23‎, ‎2014 ‎10‎:‎42‎ ‎PM >> *To:* > igcaucus.org> >> >> It is Monday 3:40 AM GMT. >> >> I am STILL in favour of IGC engaging with NMI. >> >> Nnenna >> >> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Sivasubramanian M > > wrote: >> >> Dear David Cake, >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:47 AM, David Cake > > wrote: >> >> Siva, there is a big difference between including WEF in the >> process, and having them run the process by their own rules. >> >> I *welcome* the involvement of WEF in open, participatory, >> multi-stakeholder spaces - they are in a good position to >> eloquently express some of the positions of the commercial >> sector. Often, commercial representatives within IG processes >> often represent small sectors of the commercial world with very >> strong biases towards particular issues (such as telcos and >> copyright cartels), WEF might be able to provide a broader >> commercial perspective, and maybe commercial representation in >> IG spaces might not be quite so dominated by a small cabal. And >> note, welcoming the involvement of such organisations is not the >> same as having sympathy for their policy positions and actions, >> simply I'd rather debate those positions in an open, >> transparent, multi-stakeholder fora, rather than have to battle >> covert lobbying and decision making in closed or opaque fora in >> which CS has no voice. >> >> But I *oppose* considering WEF processes as equivalent to open >> multi-stakeholder ones in legitimacy. WEFs own processes are not >> open, they are strictly gatekeepered. And they are commercial >> led processes, with commercial goals. WEF is, of course, welcome >> to keep doing those things, but such processes should not be >> considered legitimate means of producing multi-stakeholder >> transnational consensus. And this NMI process certainly started >> with assumptions that reflect the problems with WEF processes, >> such as choosing the CS sector representatives that the WEF >> wanted. >> >> >> >> 1. NETmundial is not in any way 'folded into' the WEF, so it does >> not become part of WEF. WEF is to be seen as an organization that >> has joined other organizations in this initiative. WEF processes may >> not be open, (it is upto the WEF to decide on its own style of >> managing their business forum), but as a participant of the >> NETmundial Initiative, WEF may not overwhelm this process with its >> own style. >> >> 2. NETMundial Initiative is a multi-stakeholder process where each >> stakeholder group would balance the other groups. ​If the initial >> NMI processes weren't perfect, I would rather consider it not so >> well thought of - in its early stages. >> >> As Harmut Glaser says, "It is up for the community to transform NMI >> into something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG >> in full respects of the principles enshrined in the NETmundial >> declaration. >> ​"​ >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> >> >> So, yes, bringing in the WEF can be considered a positive in >> some ways - but not in the way the NMI process has gone so far. >> >> >> >> David >> >> >> >> On 19 Nov 2014, at 5:21 pm, Sivasubramanian M >> > wrote: >> >> Dear Guru, >> >> ​(You (Guru) said: ​ >> WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen >> the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS >> Declaration of Principles from the activities of >> transnational corporations. Apart from using/monetising >> our data for their commercial gains in >> authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their >> unregulated work also is structuring our participation >> in the information society in many unhealthy ways. >> Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are >> in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary >> programme of global surveillance >> >> >> ​If such as strong generalization of big business is to be >> accepted as fair and valid, then all those who subscribe to >> such a generalization may have to go back to the WSIS >> declarations and summarily exclude Business as a Stakeholder >> group, and then declare that Internet Governance ought to be >> a process with two stakeholder groups - Government + Civil >> Society. No, no, on second thoughts I see your reference to >> Snowden and USG+, so the Civil Society could exclude >> Government from Internet Governance, and declare that >> Internet Governance must be reinvented as a single >> stakeholder group process, with Civil Society as the only >> stakeholder group. >> >> Seriously, i >> f WSIS had committed to build a " >> people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented >> Information Society >> ​", what happens to inclusiveness and development with such >> a position on Big Business? ​ >> >> >> And, why this hatred for big business? Most progress in this >> world has happened because of enterprise, much more because >> of business than because of Government. Granted, some of >> the information technology big businesses have worked with >> Governments on surveillance designs, and even there, we do >> not know how of much of such cooperation came out of a >> desire for profit and how much of it was forced by >> arm-twisting or by milder pressures in so many subtle and >> imaginative ways. >> >> Irrespective of how WEF's role has been articulated at the >> moment, it is a very positive development to bring in the WEF >> . >> ​ >> WEF participation suddenly expands business participation to >> a world of business outside the IT sector, so WEF's >> attention to IG issues might by itself act as a balancing >> influence within the corporate world, because many of these >> Big Businesses are Internet "users" themselves. >> ​Some of these Big Businesses are possibly charitable in >> unknown ways. What is needed here is strong support at the >> moment, and w >> e could >> ​eventually ​ >> work towards a greater balance across stakeholder groups.​ >> ​ >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Guru > > wrote: >> >> Dear Mawaki >> >> I would like to cite from two sources: >> >> A. WSIS Declaration of Principles - >> http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html >> (the very first two clauses) >> >> 1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world*, >> *assembled in Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the >> first phase of the World Summit on the Information >> Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to >> build a people-centred, inclusive and >> development-oriented Information Society, where everyone >> can create, access, utilize and share information and >> knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples >> to achieve their full potential in promoting their >> sustainable development and improving their quality of >> life, premised on the purposes and principles of the >> Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and >> upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >> 2. Our challenge* is to harness the potential of >> information and communication technology to promote the >> development goals of the Millennium Declaration, namely >> the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; >> achievement of universal primary education; promotion of >> gender equality and empowerment of women; reduction of >> child mortality; improvement of maternal health; to >> combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring >> environmental sustainability; and development of global >> partnerships for development for the attainment of a >> more peaceful, just and prosperous world. We also >> reiterate our commitment to the achievement of >> sustainable development and agreed development goals, as >> contained in the Johannesburg Declaration and Plan of >> Implementation and the Monterrey Consensus, and other >> outcomes of relevant United Nations Summits. >> >> I now will cite from the WEF site - >> http://www.weforum.org/our-members >> >> Begin >> Our Members >> The World Economic Forum is a membership organization. >> Our Members comprise 1,000 of the world’s top >> corporations, global enterprises usually with more than >> US$ 5 billion in turnover. These enterprises rank among >> the top companies within their industry and play a >> leading role in shaping the future of their industry and >> region. Some of our Member companies join the Forum’s >> Strategic and Industry Partnership communities, which >> are designed to deepen their engagement with the Forum’s >> events, project and initiatives. The Forum’s Members are >> at the heart of all our activities. >> End >> >> It is clear that WEF is a primarily group of big >> businesses. We have seen the increasing danger to the >> ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the >> activities of transnational corporations. Apart from >> using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in >> authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their >> unregulated work also is structuring our participation >> in the information society in many unhealthy ways. >> Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are >> in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary >> programme of global surveillance, which helps them in >> their goals of political-economic domination / >> colonisation >> >> Participating in forums anchored in such a space will >> only legitimise their power. I am clear that IGC should >> not participate in the NMI. >> >> thanks and regards >> Guru >> >> Gurumurthy Kasinathan >> Director, IT for Change >> In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations >> ECOSOC >> www.ITforChange.Net | >> Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 >> 26654134 , 26536890 >> http://karnatakaeducation.org. >> in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum >> >> >> >> On Tuesday 18 November 2014 05:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> > Dear All, >> > >> > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I >> won't repeat >> > the background details. In the middle of the night last >> night, before >> > hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing >> catch-up with >> > deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the >> NMI >> > Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. >> Basically, they are >> > willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of >> the NMI >> > Coordination Council. >> > >> > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the >> membership of CSCG >> > member entities as to whether to get involved in the >> NMI process or >> > not. I believe this is the last step in the >> consultations we've been >> > having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the >> CSCG and with the >> > membership of our respective organizations.) After this >> we should be >> > able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite >> position about >> > our participation in the NMI process. >> > >> > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and >> be brief. >> > State your preference for IGC Involvement or No >> involvement and, if >> > you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful >> to you if you >> > could keep your supporting argument in one short >> paragraph (as we >> > just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you >> see what I >> > mean.) >> > >> > Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. >> > >> > 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 >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Mon Nov 24 16:26:35 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:26:35 +0000 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <3D1E1CA9-1F08-4EC0-891C-4C39E3953A0D@difference.com.au> Message-ID: Dear All, I have listened to your views, to your fears and concerns as well as to your hopes and support. This one is really difficult a decision, probably the most difficult IGC decision I will have to be involved in before the expiration of my term. Taking into consideration all the responses, comments, explanations, positions and advice received on the IGC list in response to this call, whether under this email thread or in a different one since this call has been posted; Noting that Deirdre, my co-coordinatorship mate, has also already expressed herself on this question; Observing that most of the concerns and the strongest ones expressed here relate more (albeit not exclusively) to the presence or participation of the WEF as such in the NMI than to anything else; Considering that the NMI is a different undertaking from the WEF; Noting that the modus operandi of WEF may in itself be diametrically opposed to, or at least is different from, the open, transparent, bottom-up and consensus-seeking mode of operation that we value as civil society in the IG field and which ICG,br and IGC agree to promote and uphold in carrying forward the legacy of NETmundial2014; Noting that in that regard the goals pursued by WEF in global governance may be at odds with the goals of civil society, and as a result there are most likely many questions on which civil society and WEF may not agree on in one increasingly prominent area of global governance to date (i.e, the internet governance area); Noting that the IG space is one that is meant to be open to all stakeholders who are willing to contribute, as long as they accept to live up to that openness and the other basic rules of operation mentioned above from the CS standpoint, without the pre-requisite of agreeing with each others on their worldview or even on a set of core substantive issues; Noting that currently, the NMI is the beginning of something that still needs to be shaped and can be shaped as have shown so far the amendments that have been made by its proponents to their original plans after CS feedback and criticism; Understanding that those amendments may have been made in order to lure CS into NMI and that they may not guarantee any type of outcome on the long run unless CS remains vigilant and keeps fighting for the outcomes it wishes for or supports; Noting that the outcome of NETmundial2014 is not perfect and thus _at least_ some sections of CS do not consider it as final in the sense that some of its provisions may still need to evolve and be improved, but that would be better achieved through the continuous collaborative work of the various stakeholders rather than by fiat from one stakeholder (group); Considering that if CS resolves to join NMI, it is not lending legitimacy to WEF in any way but to NMI which has already gained some legitimacy by the CGI.br being one of its co-founders and will further gain legitimacy by having a delegate of the IGF-MAG join the NMI's Coordination Council (assuming its current design is implemented)*; I would recommend that IGC engages with the NMI process by participating in the vetting and selection by CSCG of civil society nominees to the NMI Coordination Council. On the IGC behalf, I will further advise and support the idea that the CSCG assorts the CS participation with a number of conditions that will be meant to make sure the continuous participation of the CS and its appointees is subject to being accountable to their constituents. CSCG will be informed immediately of this outcome, that is, the acceptance of IGC to go forward with NMI. Thank you for your participation in this consultation. Best regards, Mawaki (*) Excerpt from the https://www.netmundial.org/ The Coordination Council will have a total of *25 individual members*: 20 distributed across four sectors and five geographies, and additional seats (one each) for the organizational founders CGI.br and ICANN; one for the World Economic Forum in its role of supporter of the Initiative; as well as one seat each for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) and the technical community (I* group). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 24 19:01:26 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 05:31:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <3D1E1CA9-1F08-4EC0-891C-4C39E3953A0D@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <045223A4-E1D7-4AAB-B9B5-52F315DBB7B8@hserus.net> Persuasively and comprehensively argued. Thank you Mawaki --srs (iPad) > On 25-Nov-2014, at 02:56, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > Dear All, > > I have listened to your views, to your fears and concerns as well as to your hopes and support. This one is really difficult a decision, probably the most difficult IGC decision I will have to be involved in before the expiration of my term. > > Taking into consideration all the responses, comments, explanations, positions and advice received on the IGC list in response to this call, whether under this email thread or in a different one since this call has been posted; > > Noting that Deirdre, my co-coordinatorship mate, has also already expressed herself on this question; > > Observing that most of the concerns and the strongest ones expressed here relate more (albeit not exclusively) to the presence or participation of the WEF as such in the NMI than to anything else; > > Considering that the NMI is a different undertaking from the WEF; > > Noting that the modus operandi of WEF may in itself be diametrically opposed to, or at least is different from, the open, transparent, bottom-up and consensus-seeking mode of operation that we value as civil society in the IG field and which ICG,br and IGC agree to promote and uphold in carrying forward the legacy of NETmundial2014; > > Noting that in that regard the goals pursued by WEF in global governance may be at odds with the goals of civil society, and as a result there are most likely many questions on which civil society and WEF may not agree on in one increasingly prominent area of global governance to date (i.e, the internet governance area); > > Noting that the IG space is one that is meant to be open to all stakeholders who are willing to contribute, as long as they accept to live up to that openness and the other basic rules of operation mentioned above from the CS standpoint, without the pre-requisite of agreeing with each others on their worldview or even on a set of core substantive issues; > > Noting that currently, the NMI is the beginning of something that still needs to be shaped and can be shaped as have shown so far the amendments that have been made by its proponents to their original plans after CS feedback and criticism; > > Understanding that those amendments may have been made in order to lure CS into NMI and that they may not guarantee any type of outcome on the long run unless CS remains vigilant and keeps fighting for the outcomes it wishes for or supports; > > Noting that the outcome of NETmundial2014 is not perfect and thus _at least_ some sections of CS do not consider it as final in the sense that some of its provisions may still need to evolve and be improved, but that would be better achieved through the continuous collaborative work of the various stakeholders rather than by fiat from one stakeholder (group); > > Considering that if CS resolves to join NMI, it is not lending legitimacy to WEF in any way but to NMI which has already gained some legitimacy by the CGI.br being one of its co-founders and will further gain legitimacy by having a delegate of the IGF-MAG join the NMI's Coordination Council (assuming its current design is implemented)*; > > I would recommend that IGC engages with the NMI process by participating in the vetting and selection by CSCG of civil society nominees to the NMI Coordination Council. > On the IGC behalf, I will further advise and support the idea that the CSCG assorts the CS participation with a number of conditions that will be meant to make sure the continuous participation of the CS and its appointees is subject to being accountable to their constituents. > > CSCG will be informed immediately of this outcome, that is, the acceptance of IGC to go forward with NMI. > > Thank you for your participation in this consultation. > Best regards, > > Mawaki > > > (*) Excerpt from the https://www.netmundial.org/ > The Coordination Council will have a total of 25 individual members: 20 distributed across four sectors and five geographies, and additional seats (one each) for the organizational founders CGI.br and ICANN; one for the World Economic Forum in its role of supporter of the Initiative; as well as one seat each for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) and the technical community (I* group). > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Nov 25 08:00:54 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 18:30:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <3D1E1CA9-1F08-4EC0-891C-4C39E3953A0D@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <54747D86.4020906@itforchange.net> Mawaki I am sure that you know that there is a method listed in the IGC charter to take collective decisions, and the method you are following is nowhere close to that.. In the circumstances, any correspondence you will make on IGC;s behalf as representing an IGC decision on this issue will be illegal. parminder PS: Apart from the fact that you are simply not authorised to make a decision on IGC's behalf, especially on such a contested matter as the implicated one, the various 'considerations' and 'notings' that you base your 'decision' on our either faulty or heavily contested, and you surely know that. Interestingly, you have spoken of the need to take forward to evolve and improve some sections of the Sao Paolo NM declaration, whereas a lot of civil society supporters of the new NMI as well its promoters inside WEF are insisting that the /*new NMI is not at all a normative venue but is bacially a platform for project based cooperation/*. Now, with such a faulty, or atleast contested, interpretation of the central purpose of the new NMI, how can you reach a decision on the IGC's behalf. This is just one of the faulty/ contested considerations that you have relied on, and there are many others that I can refer to. In the circumstances, please withdraw your ' decision'. Also for Deirdre's comments. Please let us know what you think of the legality of this 'decision'. On Tuesday 25 November 2014 02:56 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Dear All, > > I have listened to your views, to your fears and concerns as well as > to your hopes and support. This one is really difficult a decision, > probably the most difficult IGC decision I will have to be involved in > before the expiration of my term. > > Taking into consideration all the responses, comments, explanations, > positions and advice received on the IGC list in response to this > call, whether under this email thread or in a different one since this > call has been posted; > > Noting that Deirdre, my co-coordinatorship mate, has also already > expressed herself on this question; > > Observing that most of the concerns and the strongest ones expressed > here relate more (albeit not exclusively) to the presence or > participation of the WEF as such in the NMI than to anything else; > > Considering that the NMI is a different undertaking from the WEF; > > Noting that the modus operandi of WEF may in itself be diametrically > opposed to, or at least is different from, the open, transparent, > bottom-up and consensus-seeking mode of operation that we value as > civil society in the IG field and which ICG,br and IGC agree to > promote and uphold in carrying forward the legacy of NETmundial2014; > > Noting that in that regard the goals pursued by WEF in global > governance may be at odds with the goals of civil society, and as a > result there are most likely many questions on which civil society and > WEF may not agree on in one increasingly prominent area of global > governance to date (i.e, the internet governance area); > > Noting that the IG space is one that is meant to be open to all > stakeholders who are willing to contribute, as long as they accept to > live up to that openness and the other basic rules of operation > mentioned above from the CS standpoint, without the pre-requisite of > agreeing with each others on their worldview or even on a set of core > substantive issues; > > Noting that currently, the NMI is the beginning of something that > still needs to be shaped and can be shaped as have shown so far the > amendments that have been made by its proponents to their original > plans after CS feedback and criticism; > > Understanding that those amendments may have been made in order to > lure CS into NMI and that they may not guarantee any type of outcome > on the long run unless CS remains vigilant and keeps fighting for the > outcomes it wishes for or supports; > > Noting that the outcome of NETmundial2014 is not perfect and thus _at > least_ some sections of CS do not consider it as final in the sense > that some of its provisions may still need to evolve and be improved, > but that would be better achieved through the continuous collaborative > work of the various stakeholders rather than by fiat from one > stakeholder (group); > > Considering that if CS resolves to join NMI, it is not lending > legitimacy to WEF in any way but to NMI which has already gained some > legitimacy by the CGI.br being one of its co-founders and will further > gain legitimacy by having a delegate of the IGF-MAG join the NMI's > Coordination Council (assuming its current design is implemented)*; > > I would recommend that IGC engages with the NMI process by > participating in the vetting and selection by CSCG of civil society > nominees to the NMI Coordination Council. > On the IGC behalf, I will further advise and support the idea that the > CSCG assorts the CS participation with a number of conditions that > will be meant to make sure the continuous participation of the CS and > its appointees is subject to being accountable to their constituents. > > CSCG will be informed immediately of this outcome, that is, the > acceptance of IGC to go forward with NMI. > > Thank you for your participation in this consultation. > Best regards, > > Mawaki > > > (*) Excerpt from the https://www.netmundial.org/ > The Coordination Council will have a total of *25 individual members*: > 20 distributed across four sectors and five geographies, and > additional seats (one each) for the organizational founders CGI.br and > ICANN; one for the World Economic Forum in its role of supporter of > the Initiative; as well as one seat each for the IGF Multistakeholder > Advisory Group (MAG) and the technical community (I* group). > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Nov 25 09:43:16 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 18:43:16 +0400 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <54747D86.4020906@itforchange.net> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <3D1E1CA9-1F08-4EC0-891C-4C39E3953A0D@difference.com.au> <54747D86.4020906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <54749584.1080708@wzb.eu> Now I am confused! Mawaki represents the caucus in the CSCG. As a member of that group he should act on our behalf or shouldn't he? And even if Mawaki interprets his role and responsibilities in ways different from you, what law is it exactly that he violates? jeanette Am 25.11.14 17:00, schrieb parminder: > Mawaki > > I am sure that you know that there is a method listed in the IGC charter > to take collective decisions, and the method you are following is > nowhere close to that.. > > In the circumstances, any correspondence you will make on IGC;s behalf > as representing an IGC decision on this issue will be illegal. > > parminder > > PS: Apart from the fact that you are simply not authorised to make a > decision on IGC's behalf, especially on such a contested matter as the > implicated one, the various 'considerations' and 'notings' that you base > your 'decision' on our either faulty or heavily contested, and you > surely know that. > > Interestingly, you have spoken of the need to take forward to evolve and > improve some sections of the Sao Paolo NM declaration, whereas a lot of > civil society supporters of the new NMI as well its promoters inside WEF > are insisting that the /*new NMI is not at all a normative venue but is > bacially a platform for project based cooperation/*. Now, with such a > faulty, or atleast contested, interpretation of the central purpose of > the new NMI, how can you reach a decision on the IGC's behalf. > > This is just one of the faulty/ contested considerations that you have > relied on, and there are many others that I can refer to. > > In the circumstances, please withdraw your ' decision'. Also for > Deirdre's comments. Please let us know what you think of the legality of > this 'decision'. > > > > > On Tuesday 25 November 2014 02:56 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> I have listened to your views, to your fears and concerns as well as >> to your hopes and support. This one is really difficult a decision, >> probably the most difficult IGC decision I will have to be involved in >> before the expiration of my term. >> >> Taking into consideration all the responses, comments, explanations, >> positions and advice received on the IGC list in response to this >> call, whether under this email thread or in a different one since this >> call has been posted; >> >> Noting that Deirdre, my co-coordinatorship mate, has also already >> expressed herself on this question; >> >> Observing that most of the concerns and the strongest ones expressed >> here relate more (albeit not exclusively) to the presence or >> participation of the WEF as such in the NMI than to anything else; >> >> Considering that the NMI is a different undertaking from the WEF; >> >> Noting that the modus operandi of WEF may in itself be diametrically >> opposed to, or at least is different from, the open, transparent, >> bottom-up and consensus-seeking mode of operation that we value as >> civil society in the IG field and which ICG,br and IGC agree to >> promote and uphold in carrying forward the legacy of NETmundial2014; >> >> Noting that in that regard the goals pursued by WEF in global >> governance may be at odds with the goals of civil society, and as a >> result there are most likely many questions on which civil society and >> WEF may not agree on in one increasingly prominent area of global >> governance to date (i.e, the internet governance area); >> >> Noting that the IG space is one that is meant to be open to all >> stakeholders who are willing to contribute, as long as they accept to >> live up to that openness and the other basic rules of operation >> mentioned above from the CS standpoint, without the pre-requisite of >> agreeing with each others on their worldview or even on a set of core >> substantive issues; >> >> Noting that currently, the NMI is the beginning of something that >> still needs to be shaped and can be shaped as have shown so far the >> amendments that have been made by its proponents to their original >> plans after CS feedback and criticism; >> >> Understanding that those amendments may have been made in order to >> lure CS into NMI and that they may not guarantee any type of outcome >> on the long run unless CS remains vigilant and keeps fighting for the >> outcomes it wishes for or supports; >> >> Noting that the outcome of NETmundial2014 is not perfect and thus _at >> least_ some sections of CS do not consider it as final in the sense >> that some of its provisions may still need to evolve and be improved, >> but that would be better achieved through the continuous collaborative >> work of the various stakeholders rather than by fiat from one >> stakeholder (group); >> >> Considering that if CS resolves to join NMI, it is not lending >> legitimacy to WEF in any way but to NMI which has already gained some >> legitimacy by the CGI.br being one of its co-founders and will further >> gain legitimacy by having a delegate of the IGF-MAG join the NMI's >> Coordination Council (assuming its current design is implemented)*; >> >> I would recommend that IGC engages with the NMI process by >> participating in the vetting and selection by CSCG of civil society >> nominees to the NMI Coordination Council. >> On the IGC behalf, I will further advise and support the idea that the >> CSCG assorts the CS participation with a number of conditions that >> will be meant to make sure the continuous participation of the CS and >> its appointees is subject to being accountable to their constituents. >> >> CSCG will be informed immediately of this outcome, that is, the >> acceptance of IGC to go forward with NMI. >> >> Thank you for your participation in this consultation. >> Best regards, >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> (*) Excerpt from the https://www.netmundial.org/ >> The Coordination Council will have a total of *25 individual members*: >> 20 distributed across four sectors and five geographies, and >> additional seats (one each) for the organizational founders CGI.br and >> ICANN; one for the World Economic Forum in its role of supporter of >> the Initiative; as well as one seat each for the IGF Multistakeholder >> Advisory Group (MAG) and the technical community (I* group). >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 25 09:42:30 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 20:12:30 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> <5471BC3C.9010602@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <54749556.30200@itforchange.net> On Monday 24 November 2014 10:07 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > This is the kind of drivel that is more likely to make people support > NMI than oppose it. > Dear Milton First of all, thanks for being so bothered about people supporting NMI. We agree on this. But only this far. Your reasons for advocating that civil society as a group should not support NMI seems to relate to its single, hegemonic nature and that the process is neither clear, nor equal or inclusive. JNC's primary reasons from staying away are different, which of course you know (which is perhaps why you censored the JNC statement on NMI from your blog :), which sure is your editorial freedom). Our reasons focus on the the idea of social justice and, in the negative, neoliberalism, which in our view are respectively compromised and advanced in partnering with the WEF in developing a global governance platform. We also believe that the process issues about the WEF-ICANN's NMI are structurally related to substantive issues, and thus cannot be improved just because some civil society people or groups lean on 'them' to do it. You of course do not agree with these concerns. You have said on the IGC list that you do not think that 'social justice' means anything at all. We know that this term is mainstream for much of global civil society, and even including foundations like the Ford Foundation, which incidentally has been funding you (or any rate was at the time you mentioned your disbelief in the very idea of social justice).. Further you have said recently in your blog that it is time we "faced the fact that the internet is entirely a product of neoliberal policies". So you do support neoliberal policies. Incidentally, mainstream global civil society does not. World Social Forum was formed both in direct opposition to neoliberal policies being pursued the world-over, and to its most definitive symbol, the World Economic Forum. We therefore can see that you do not have objections to the expected substantive thrusts of an WEF led NMI. We would not have been surprised if you had supported the WEF dominated NMI, and if you have not, we can understand that this is due to some peripheral reasons, as you make clear in an subsequent email to Carlos. What surprises and pains us however is that part of civil society, including in Brazil, which would normally be seen talking about social justice and against neoliberal policies. We are surprised that many elements of this civil society can actually argue that even with WEF centrally there, an NMI can lead to outcomes for social justice and against neoliberalisation of everything, which is what the WEF is wedded to. This despite having shown direct quotes to these people from WEF documents that they have a clear plan for the IG space, as a lead element for neoliberalisation of governance of other spaces. The plan centrally includes non-democratic models of governance, where the elites, with some selective cooptations govern the world. And therefore 'bad process' is tied to the substantive WEF thinking. And if they ever make some adjustments to this 'bad process' is will only be for the sake of temporarily co-opting some important constituencies, as they may be trying to do now. That some civil society people here think that they can actually change the WEF from its known and entreched ways of thinking (which are in fact its/raison d'être/ ) is almost funny. Civil society partnering with the WEF on a global governance initiative is not the civil society we knew. It is something new. But new can be interesting. Lets see where it leads us.. parminder > Another clarification with regard to Internet governance is needed for > the period in which Lula presided Brazil, there was a Brazilian > multilateral diplomatic position, which did not accept the Icann > /multistakeholdism/. > > MM: Yes, they were locked in the mentality of the past. They did not > understand the Internet and the more distributed governance models > emerging globally. > > It must be said that President Dilma Rousseffi, the opening of the > 68th General Assembly of the United Nations on 24 September 2013, held > in the Brazilian diplomatic tradition one multilateralist discourse, > which advocated a democratic governance, multilateral and open. What > > MM: “multilateral” meaning, “one country one vote,” which is of course > extremely undemocratic. Because it means not only that all the > diversity within each nation-state is unrepresented, but also that > undemocratic states have as much voting power as democratic ones. No > thank you! > > happened was a maneuver performed by the CGI-Br members to break the > diplomatic tradition of Brazil and make a meeting coordinated by ICANN > and I * that began to adopt /multistakeholdist/ ideology in the Sao > Paulo meeting, the NetMundial. > > MM: Yes, Brazil’s government seemed to (wisely) move toward acceptance > of a multi-stakeholder approach. To dismiss this as a “maneuver” by > CGI.br (I guess they are not true Brazilians) seems to be a denial of > reality. Or are you asserting that President Rousseff walked into the > meeting completely ignorant of what was going on? But OK, duly noted: > Mr. Pires joins Russia and Cuba in dissent against the Netmundial meeting. > > The meeting failed when not discussed the policies to fight the mass > surveillance carried out by the US, when not produced a single line on > the asymmetric model for the roots server system, when not opted to > set a clear policy favorable to net neutrality. > > MM: I was there, and recall many discussions of mass surveillance. And > the attacks on the unilateral approach to the DNS were mooted by the > NTIA announcement that they would end it. There were no discussions of > how to end it, but if you were paying attention there were many > discussions of what should replace it. > > To overcome the /multistakeholdist/ ideology of NetMundial Iniciative, > civil society organizations (as JNC), social movements in networks and > public and private actors need to engage in fights and discussions to > build a new model of IG, which guarantee: a) a worldwide organization > for Internet, that really represents the interests of all nation states > > MM: Wonderful. So it is not the people we want to represent, or even > Internet users and suppliers, but “nation-states?” > > and to ensure net neutrality and respect the Internet as a common > good; b) a worldwide Internet statement that has as principle the > protection of privacy, freedom of expression and to promote free and > universal access to the Internet and free software; c) a court with > international > > MM: …because, as we know, nation-states are so devoted to freedom of > expression, privacy and free software! > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 25 09:53:59 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 08:53:59 -0600 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <54749584.1080708@wzb.eu> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <3D1E1CA9-1F08-4EC0-891C-4C39E3953A0D@difference.com.au> <54747D86.4020906@itforchange.net> <54749584.1080708@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20141125145359.GA9015@hserus.net> Jeanette Hofmann [25/11/14 18:43 +0400]: >Now I am confused! Mawaki represents the caucus in the CSCG. As a >member of that group he should act on our behalf or shouldn't he? And >even if Mawaki interprets his role and responsibilities in ways >different from you, what law is it exactly that he violates? I am sure Parminder can try to sue him for violating whatever imaginary law it is. It certainly isn't any sort of contract enforcible in law. Unless this is one of those "neo lessigisms", "my interpretation of a mailing list's mores is law" -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 25 10:11:26 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 10:11:26 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <54749556.30200@itforchange.net> References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> <5471BC3C.9010602@cafonso.ca> <54749556.30200@itforchange.net> Message-ID: At our meeting with Fadi in NYC yesterday he seemed to be distancing the NMI process from the WEF http://youtu.be/huI6PucrL7c Earlier he spoke of the undeniable need for a forum for nation states to discuss non-technical Internet issues. Later he described the NMI as a "blank slate" waiting for bottom-up initiatives. (I'll post full video later today) So, perhaps he is coming to accept that the two ideas are not necessarily entirely compatible? j On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:42 AM, parminder wrote: > > > Civil society partnering with the WEF on a global governance initiative is > not the civil society we knew. It is something new. But new can be > interesting. Lets see where it leads us.. > > parminder > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Nov 25 14:40:34 2014 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 19:40:34 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: Information Technology Agreement Breakthrough Expands ICT, Medtech and Cleantech Trade -- ATTORNEY ADVERTISING In-Reply-To: <1116737728.1531442331416852102275.JavaMail.app@rbg51.atlis1> References: <1116737728.1531442331416852102275.JavaMail.app@rbg51.atlis1> Message-ID: Just fyi re IT Agreement breakthroughs which I missed mention of in the news... best wishes and happy thanksgiving to all (whether really or only virtually/hegemonically following US customs! ; ) Lee PS: My 1 cent: the APEC/WTO trade-expanding Information Technology tariff reductions agreed by US and China the other week, and perhaps soon also by India, EU, Japan and Korea among others over the next few weeks would be very good news for the world economy/global information society heading into 2015. ________________________________ From: WilmerHale Client Alerts Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 1:01 PM To: Lee W McKnight Subject: Information Technology Agreement Breakthrough Expands ICT, Medtech and Cleantech Trade -- ATTORNEY ADVERTISING This message contains graphics. If you do not see the graphics, click here to view. [http://contentz.mkt4275.com/ra/2014/27966/11/10007319/logo.gif] SIGN UP Trade Alert WilmerHale | November 24, 2014 REGULATORY AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS US and China Agree to Reduce Tariffs and Expand High-Tech Trade Through the Information Technology Agreement By: Naboth van den Broek, Lester Ross, David Ross, Jeffrey Kessler and Marik String The United States and China last week announced a breakthrough bilateral understanding regarding negotiations to expand the scope of the Information Technology Agreement (ITA). This announcement opens the door for formal conclusion of an ITA expansion deal—i.e., ITA -II—at the World Trade Organization (WTO) as early as December, which would zero out tariffs on a number of high-technology items, including next-generation semiconductors, certain medical technologies, GPS devices, videogame consoles, and other items. These newly zeroed tariffs would apply to goods imported from all countries to ITA signatories, in accordance with the WTO’s most-favored nation (MFN) rules. Market participants should closely monitor developments related to the ITA, including the list of information and communications technology (ICT) products to be included in a final ITA-II Agreement and their phase-out periods. After the conclusion of the ITA-II, it will also be critical to monitor any non-tariff barriers (NTBs) that ITA members and others may impose as they eliminate their tariffs; such NTBs are not directly covered by the ITA negotiations but may be covered by broader WTO rules. Background Concluded in 1996, the original ITA is a plurilateral WTO Agreement covering a wide range of high-technology products, such as computers, certain semiconductors (other than multi-component devices (MCOs)), scientific instruments, and other telecommunications equipment. It obligates participating countries to eliminate tariffs on specified ICT products. The 54 ITA parties constitute more than 90 percent of world trade in ICT products, but all WTO states benefit from ITA tariff reductions due to MFN rules. As a result of the significant changes in the technology landscape since 1996, important gaps have emerged in the coverage of the original ITA. For example, significant technological advances have since occurred in GPS technology, medical devices, and an array of other next-generation software and hardware. Accordingly, since 2012, participating states have been negotiating to expand the list to include more than 200 additional technology products, including communications, data, and medical devices. However, negotiations reached an impasse in November 2013, when US and EU negotiators refused to accept China’s efforts to reduce the product scope and tariff phase-out periods under the ITA-II. The main sticking points were products for which China still depends on imports, including MCO semiconductors and certain medical devices for imaging, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machines and computed tomography (CT) scanners. The US and the EU wanted these goods included, whereas China did not lest its domestic producers be harmed. As a result, negotiations among the parties were put on hold. US-China Breakthrough at APEC The annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit provides a forum for leaders of its 21 member states to discuss economic, trade, and related issues. Last week’s Summit in Beijing represented, in particular, an important opportunity for US and Chinese leadership to discuss economic issues central to the bilateral relationship, including the ITA. At the summit, the United States and China announced “an understanding on a bilateral agreement” to expand the scope of the ITA to include more than 200 tariff lines subject to tariff elimination. The covered products include MCOs, MRI machines, CT scanners, GPS devices, prepaid cards to download software and games, printer ink cartridges, static converters and inductors, loudspeakers, software media, solid state drives, video game consoles, video cameras and high-tech ICT testing instruments.1 The US and China also reportedly agreed on a common definition of MCOs, which will not be identified under specific tariff lines (no universal tariff code yet exists for MCOs) but rather described qualitatively for inclusion on Attachment B of the ITA. All products meeting the description will be subject to tariff reductions. This agreement was particularly significant in light of China’s longstanding efforts to maintain tariffs on MCOs. Next Steps for ITA Negotiations The breakthrough announced this week sets the stage for concluding negotiations to expand the ITA, and possibly reaching a deal by the end of the year. If successful, the ITA expansion would be the first major tariff-cutting agreement at the WTO in 17 years. A key remaining issue for negotiators will be to reach agreement on the phase-out periods for tariffs of covered goods. Under the ITA, products generally fall into staging categories requiring either immediate, three-year, or five-year phase-out periods. China had sought to extend the phase-out periods to up to ten years, but it reportedly dropped this demand as part of the understanding reached last week at APEC. The exact tariff phase-out periods for particular goods will, however, be subject to further negotiation. As other key ITA participants—including the EU, Japan, Korea and Taiwan—join the negotiations over the next month, the successful agreement on an expanded ITA is by no means assured. However, together with a separate US-India agreement that may allow WTO Trade Facilitation Negotiations to conclude, the US-China ITA deal has resulted in a more optimistic outlook for the December WTO meeting of trade ministers (i.e., the WTO Ministerial) and trade relations in general. Finally, unlike other pending trade agreements (such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement), implementation of the ITA-II would be relatively straightforward in the United States, as the Obama Administration can use residual authority from the Uruguay Round without requiring formal Congressional approval. Similarly, we expect relatively swift approval of any final ITA-II deal in China. Conclusion These important developments are encouraging for ICT, medical technology, and other high-technology manufacturers around the world. However, close monitoring of the final details, including the final list of ICT products and their phase-out periods, is warranted. Furthermore, market participants should carefully monitor, over the coming months and beyond, whether ITA members replace zeroed out tariffs with non-tariff protectionist measures, which may have equally harmful effects and may be remediable under other WTO rules. 1 US Trade Representative, Fact Sheet: Supporting Economic Growth at Home and Abroad by Eliminating Trade Barriers on Information Technology Products, November 11, 2014. [http://contentz.mkt4275.com/ra/2014/27966/11/10007319/seprator_img.jpg] International Trade, Investment and Market Access [http://contentz.mkt4275.com/ra/2014/27966/11/10007319/spacer102.gif] In a global economy, government policies can impede or enable business success: businesses are significantly affected by government policies that directly limit market access, impose non-transparent or unreasonably burdensome government regulations, treat investments unfairly, fail to protect or enforce intellectual property, or subsidize domestic competitors. WilmerHale has a long record of success in assisting clients on these issues, and our trade group is widely recognized as being at the top of the field. Read more China Practice [http://contentz.mkt4275.com/ra/2014/27966/11/10007319/spacer102.gif] While China’s rapidly restructuring and growing economy offers attractive trade and investment opportunities, capitalizing on those opportunities presents particular challenges. To assist clients with these challenges and opportunities, our China practice offers a unique combination of services bringing together prominent policy, regulatory and government relations capabilities in China with premier in-country business and transactions experience. Learn more SIGN UP | RSS FEEDS | WILMERHALE.COM FEEDBACK FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS OR OTHER TRADE MATTERS, CONTACT: Lester Ross +86 10 5901 6588 lester.ross at wilmerhale.com Naboth van den Broek +1 202 247 3267 naboth.vandenbroek at wilmerhale.com David J. Ross +1 202 663 6515 david.ross at wilmerhale.com Jeffrey I. Kessler +1 202 663 6212 jeffrey.kessler at wilmerhale.com Marik A. String +1 202 663 6732 marik.string at wilmerhale.com Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP is a Delaware limited liability partnership. WilmerHale principal law offices: 60 State Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02109, +1 617 526 6000; 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20006, +1 202 663 6000. Our United Kingdom offices are operated under a separate Delaware limited liability partnership of solicitors and registered foreign lawyers authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA No. 287488). Our professional rules can be found at www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/code-of-conduct.page. A list of partners and their professional qualifications is available for inspection at our UK offices. In Beijing, we are registered to operate as a Foreign Law Firm Representative Office. This material is for general informational purposes only and does not represent our advice as to any particular set of facts; nor does it represent any undertaking to keep recipients advised of all legal developments. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. ©2014 Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP [http://links.wilmerhaleupdate.com/open/log/10007319/MTg1NzEzNTc3NzES1/0/NDIyMTAyOTYyS0/1/0] To opt-out from future communications please click here. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From compsoftnet at gmail.com Tue Nov 25 16:57:10 2014 From: compsoftnet at gmail.com (Akinremi Peter Taiwo) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 22:57:10 +0100 Subject: Nothing to do with internet governance or NMI WAS Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <1772746e261a18240cf44a85af7af3b9.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: Good summary Deirdre. Ah...major key component in a computer is the motherboard. "Trust" among civil society is liking to a motherboard connecting everyone together... On Nov 22, 2014 2:38 AM, "Deirdre Williams" wrote: > Did Wikileaks and Snowden hit us so hard that we stopped trusting each > other as well as "them", the ones who are watching us all the time, the > ones we thought we could trust? > The Istanbul IGC face to face meeting, which didn't happen, (my fault, I > was so busy I forgot to send reminders and there was also a confusion about > the room,) ended up with three of us - Nnenna, Anja and myself, and Mawaki > waiting at the other end of a skype connection. (Thank you to those who > came and to all of you who apologised for not turning up). > We chatted while we were waiting, nothing formal, just brainstorming about > the IGC and its troubles. We came to the conclusion that initially the IGC > brought many different views to the table, but in an atmosphere of mutual > respect. The tension, the quarrel if you like, was between the different > view points, not between the different members. People brought their own > ideas, but they also brought a willingness to listen. The atmosphere was > positive, negotiation towards common ground in so far as that was possible. > (Not all of the time of course - IGC members are as human as anyone else, > but mostly) > Somewhere that got lost, and the trust that had enabled to group to work > together in spite of many differences just disappeared. And a huge rift > drained strength from the civil society lobby. > Trusting is fairly easy to do at the beginning of a relationship, almost > automatic. But if that initial trust is lost then it becomes really hard > work requiring a great deal of self-control to rebuild it. > We should ask ourselves whether we have the energy to rebuild that trust, > because without it I don't think we're going to get very far. > Rather more than two cents worth > Deirdre > > On 21 November 2014 20:16, Ian Peter wrote: > >> Hi Parminder, >> >> I could probably name about a dozen people - on both sides of this debate >> - who have reduced this discussion to personal attacks. And yes I thought >> some of Jeremys comments were over the top too. >> >> If I wrote on list every time this happened I would only be adding to the >> noise rather than trying to reduce it. And would probably suffer from acute >> depression as a result. >> >> I think if you look at my postings over a few years where I have been >> critical of personal attacks you will see that they have been directed to >> anyone involved, irrespective of the policy stance they were trying to (or >> not trying to) convey. >> >> Ian >> >> -----Original Message----- From: parminder at itforchange.net >> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 10:42 AM >> To: Ian Peter >> Cc: Nnenna Nwakanma ; michael gurstein ; Anriette Esterhuysen ; >> Governance ; Best Bits >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial >> Initiative - RFC >> >> Thanks Nnenna. >>> >>> Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of opinion. >>> >> >> Ian >> >> But is it not that your passion for advocating tolerance fires rather >> erratically, you having entirely missed some rather sustained obnoxious >> utterances from your friend Jeremy, along with whom you have been for a >> long time now making a strong case that civil society joins the WEF MN >> Initiative? And also David Cake, who has all kinds of definitive views on >> JNC's positions - that I myself have no knowledge of, and on the general >> abilities, including academic and intellectual, of JNC members. >> >> In contrast, Michael’s somewhat rhetorically styled posing makes a >> political point of how going with WEF can be seen as compromising on >> social justice considerations - which is a political view shared by an >> overwhelming number of civil society people and groups all over the world. >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >>> Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others. It >>> would be good if this respect for differing opinions was reciprocated. >>> >>> The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when >>> someones >>> personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that people stop >>> expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It would be good if we >>> concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And some voices have >>> already been silenced on this issue. >>> >>> We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can agree to >>> respect differences of opinion. >>> >>> Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building APC >>> as “ an international network and non profit organisation that wants >>> everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve our lives >>> and create a more just world†. No, she is not abandoning the pursuit of >>> social justice. >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Nnenna Nwakanma >>> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM >>> To: michael gurstein >>> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial >>> Initiative - RFC >>> >>> Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me the >>> more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is not >>> perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as >>> abandoning the pursuit of social justice? >>> >>> >>> If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson >>> Mandela. And it is him who said: >>> "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your >>> enemy. Then he becomes your partner." >>> >>> >>> I will rest my case for now >>> >>> >>> Nnenna >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein >>> wrote: >>> >>> So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI >>> offers >>> some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, >>> you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of social >>> justice. >>> >>> >>> >>> M >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette >>> Esterhuysen >>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM >>> To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma >>> Cc: Governance; Best Bits >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in >>> NETmundial Initiative - RFC >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear all >>> >>> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our >>> members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with >>> project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on >>> IG, so apologies for not participating. >>> >>> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have >>> also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there >>> are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process >>> a try. >>> >>> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, >>> and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position. >>> I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is >>> legitimate and clear. >>> >>> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how >>> Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and >>> white'. >>> >>> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we >>> expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August >>> have actually been addressed. >>> >>> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more >>> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its >>> mechanisms. >>> >>> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we >>> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at >>> national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to >>> many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive >>> democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through >>> closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental >>> processes and mechanisms. >>> >>> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast. >>> >>> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the >>> following: >>> >>> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us >>> - a limited timeframe >>> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we >>> continue or not >>> >>> >>> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it >>> closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to >>> get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our >>> particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the >>> process and whether it meets the criteria important to us. >>> >>> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns >>> out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, and >>> we can always withdraw. >>> >>> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most >>> progressive, >>> to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive >>> processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I think that >>> backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial >>> would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement, >>> internet governance. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> >>> >>> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps >>> shed >>> some light on why their government has decided to support this >>> initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? >>> I have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and >>> can't help but wonder whether I'm missing something here. >>> >>> >>> >>> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in >>> favour >>> of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though >>> as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations >>> who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the >>> wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the >>> Brazilian government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a >>> new power centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have >>> already given themselves some fixed seats. >>> >>> >>> >>> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee >>> means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" >>> clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others >>> on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at >>> NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would >>> be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel >>> like the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to >>> rubberstamp things that would happen anyway - but because we okay >>> them, somehow the structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain >>> a legitimacy that they would not have had without. An unwise use of >>> our power, I would say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is >>> something that a representative from the WEF made clear enough to me >>> in an informal conversation in October. Some of the individual >>> initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the >>> structure as a whole, I am not so certain) >>> >>> >>> >>> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring >>> the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by >>> Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're >>> thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it >>> forward. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks and best, >>> >>> Anja >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma >>> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil >>> Society members here. >>> >>> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to >>> table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be >>> withdrawn if XYZ is not met. >>> >>> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I >>> dont think we should miss out. >>> >>> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate. >>> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very >>> interested in the NMI. >>> >>> I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to >>> participate but we cannot ask others not to. >>> >>> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And >>> at the same time, saying that it is important for African S to >>> participate. >>> >>> All for now >>> >>> Nnenna >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >>> Journal wrote: >>> >>> Jeremy, >>> >>> Thanks for your email. >>> >>> >>> >>> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we >>> both >>> do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise >>> to terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real >>> politics. >>> >>> >>> >>> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better >>> effect >>> and impact. >>> >>> >>> >>> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or >>> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of >>> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It >>> looks more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate >>> grouping of a wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep >>> pockets, and friends with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to >>> clarify the obvious tactics behind all their gesture. I had an >>> intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my life, and can more >>> than easily read the partition behind all of that smoking screen. In >>> the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie" when you >>> need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple line. >>> No, let's stay on what is at stake such as >>> >>> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US >>> refused to discuss mass surveillance? >>> >>> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep >>> maturing >>> and growing? >>> >>> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, >>> insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part >>> of the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao >>> Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass >>> surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us. >>> >>> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the >>> EU >>> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, >>> that search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple >>> links they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good >>> debate for CS. >>> >>> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More >>> important than IANA for example? >>> >>> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it >>> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is >>> saying the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we >>> help ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking >>> at all the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed >>> with their innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical >>> corps. They also create more "values". >>> >>> >>> >>> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. >>> Nevertheless, CS should really act differently. The NMI story is >>> relevant of the weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this >>> is not to blame JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote >>> someone today. >>> >>> >>> >>> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in >>> a satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist >>> their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get >>> it not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to >>> go directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when >>> launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep >>> creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory >>> boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. >>> We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. >>> >>> >>> >>> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a >>> debate and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, >>> citizens and corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the >>> growing asymmetry we live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of >>> History, and our fellow citizens, we are failing, because CS is not >>> united. To do that you do not need any WEF. You only need to trust, >>> share, and confront the realities that are taking away our rights. >>> This is what should be done, now, instead of wasting our time and >>> little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of the WEF. >>> >>> >>> >>> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own >>> mandate. >>> JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more >>> and more people. We should not care about that. We should care about >>> having a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and >>> the current mandarins to take more progressive steps. >>> Multistakeholderism when it comes to convene and consult many >>> participants is certainly nice. This has often been done, long >>> before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When it comes >>> to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply >>> doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, >>> they would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better >>> than other few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political >>> model. It could work, but then it would lead to some social >>> disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence. >>> >>> >>> >>> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our >>> bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no >>> corporation, no barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound >>> democratic concern (to avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are >>> ready to go into rationales as long as we are not characterized as >>> psychotics or lunatics. >>> >>> >>> >>> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil >>> society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree >>> that we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not >>> have hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in >>> the debate. That would be fair. >>> >>> >>> >>> JC >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >>> Journal wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. >>> On a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the >>> "dumping on civil society colleagues" you are referring to, >>> >>> >>> >>> Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post >>> about this at igfwatch.org, because JNC’s pathologies are >>> off-topic for this list. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do >>> listen to non JNC members: >>> >>> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread >>> Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask >>> Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is >>> the WIB Initiative) >>> >>> >>> >>> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some >>> quarters to create a "UN Security Council†>>> >>> >>> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... >>> Fadi >>> Chehadé: ... >>> >>> >>> >>> None of these statements support the characterisation of the >>> Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for >>> global [Internet] governance†. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC >>> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance >>> to participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to >>> blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are >>> owners of what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due >>> reserves by different participants. >>> >>> >>> >>> I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial >>> Initiative (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of >>> the NETmundial meeting. On this much we agree. >>> >>> >>> >>> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy >>> ... >>> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious >>> concerns seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives >>> presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr. >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally >>> I >>> certainly have >>> (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial- >>> initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the- >>> netmundial-principles). >>> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial >>> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of >>> other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their >>> endorsement of the Initiative. >>> >>> >>> >>> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which >>> was sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently >>> received, off list, two emails in support, as well as one against). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits >>> list): >>> >>> >>> >>> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now >>> because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a >>> flight a few hours later. But I write this brief response just >>> because you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - >>> I’m not. Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your >>> questions rather than me monopolising the conversation. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> 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 :: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>> The Internet Democracy Project >>> >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________You received >>> this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To unsubscribe or change your settings, >>> visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> -- `````````````````````````````````anriette esterhuysenexecutive >>> directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755, melville, >>> 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> -------------------- >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits_________________ >>> ___________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Nov 25 17:33:10 2014 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 22:33:10 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?FW=3A_=5BIP=5D_New_=27Internet_Secu?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?rity_Council=27_struggling_to_get_off_the_ground_=95_The?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?_Register?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <72dc7beac0c4440a84b26100116fe9d8@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> fyi Lee ________________________________ From: Dave Farber via ip Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 4:52 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] New 'Internet Security Council' struggling to get off the ground • The Register http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/25/netmundial_initiative_struggling/ Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hindenburgo at gmail.com Tue Nov 25 22:03:31 2014 From: hindenburgo at gmail.com (Hindenburgo Pires) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 01:03:31 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> <5471BC3C.9010602@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Dear Mueller Your comment would need to be answered in a more comprehensive way, although I don't have to defend the use of multilateral expression or of multilateralism because the Itamaraty (The Foreign Ministry) has already done since the Second World War. In international diplomacy the term multilateral means much more than "one country one vote", the term multilateral means “several or many sides involved”. Multilateral is not the same as undemocratic, undemocratic is the UNILATERALISM and the loss of diplomacy as a primacy of policy. The ideology of the unilateralism has worked against the multilateralism, as condition of legitimate social representation, and has destroyed the diplomatic representation of the nation-states. Although I do not have the desire to make any clarification or etymological essentialist about the origin of the terms stakeholder (see the stakeholder theory in Edward Freeman) and multi-stakeholder, these terms do not mean a representation of plural civil society and more votes, but a representation of interested parties (corporations, businesses, military sectors). Therefore, from a methodological point of view and operational multistakeholdism is not diversity representative, it is the field of inertia representative of hegemonic unilateralism, articulated with the private sectors and military that perpetuate the status quo. Multistakeholdism is a disguised form of corporate unilateralism, the primacy of the discourse of a single State (or an empire) on the other nation-states. For understanding of these strategies, we must also know how and when the plural "stakeholders" is no longer used and had been replaced by neologism multi-stakeholder to transform into a new mimesis of unilateralism in the new field ideological and “diplomatic”. (See: Pires, 2014 - http://www.ub.edu/geocrit//sn/sn-493/493-53.pdf ) The organizers of the event NetMundial translated erroneously the word of English "multi-stakeholder" as multisectoral. Perhaps by an ideological and non-linguistic issue because the translation of the word for the Portuguese language should be "multiple Interested parties", that does not imply sectors of society, but only corporate interests. Here in Brazil, the word "multisectoral" was originally introduced in the early 1990s, and means plurality of sectors engaged in defending the cause environmentalist and was also used in reference to the different currents of environmentalism at the conference Eco-92. Therefore, this concept does not apply to this new context in which there are no sectors dialoguing and deciding on proposals. In NetMundial, representatives of countries, such as Cuba and Russia, who managed to submit their proposals, were only ears, since there was no vote in the plenary session and the final document, according to allegations, was already prepared before the meeting here in Brazil, sponsored by ICANN. But, with respect to these countries, Brazilian diplomacy is against the economic embargo of Cuba and Russia. Your assertion that I "join Russia and Cuba in dissent against the Netmundial meeting” is not true because I even conversed informally with the representatives of these countries and also, as the other participants, I could not vote in favor of or against their proposals. Perhaps there was a flaw in the surveillance of participants with respect to their dialogs with other participants. In NetMundial, in the Space of Dialog, sponsored by São Paulo Municipality, on the day of the debate on “Sovereignty and digital surveillance in the internet age", which was attended by: the journalist Natalia Viana, Neville Roy Singham, Jacob Appelbaum and Julian Assange (online Chat), I was there, as an observer, representing the International Network of GeoCrítica, at this single event that dealt with this topic (mass surveillance). However, the discussions of the forums of this area was not included on the official document. The questions that we should ask are: When "networks" supersede the nation-states, in a Post-Westphalian neo-liberal conception? When the warfare state will no longer recognize the cyberspace as the fifth area of control and power? The mass surveillance and the installation of state of exception are ideological strategics to the permanence of current unilateralism. If we look at how this ideology is forming his followers in all countries, offering top-down, courses, scholarships and funding for people who advocate this ideas, it is clear that are not sectors of civil society who are advocates the “multistakeholdism”. 2014-11-24 2:37 GMT-02:00 Milton L Mueller : > This is the kind of drivel that is more likely to make people support > NMI than oppose it. > > Another clarification with regard to Internet governance is needed for the > period in which Lula presided Brazil, there was a Brazilian multilateral > diplomatic position, which did not accept the Icann *multistakeholdism*. > > MM: Yes, they were locked in the mentality of the past. They did not > understand the Internet and the more distributed governance models emerging > globally. > > It must be said that President Dilma Rousseffi, the opening of the 68th > General Assembly of the United Nations on 24 September 2013, held in the > Brazilian diplomatic tradition one multilateralist discourse, which > advocated a democratic governance, multilateral and open. What > > MM: “multilateral” meaning, “one country one vote,” which is of course > extremely undemocratic. Because it means not only that all the diversity > within each nation-state is unrepresented, but also that undemocratic > states have as much voting power as democratic ones. No thank you! > > happened was a maneuver performed by the CGI-Br members to break the > diplomatic tradition of Brazil and make a meeting coordinated by ICANN and > I * that began to adopt *multistakeholdist* ideology in the Sao Paulo > meeting, the NetMundial. > > MM: Yes, Brazil’s government seemed to (wisely) move toward acceptance of > a multi-stakeholder approach. To dismiss this as a “maneuver” by CGI.br (I > guess they are not true Brazilians) seems to be a denial of reality. Or are > you asserting that President Rousseff walked into the meeting completely > ignorant of what was going on? But OK, duly noted: Mr. Pires joins Russia > and Cuba in dissent against the Netmundial meeting. > > The meeting failed when not discussed the policies to fight the mass > surveillance carried out by the US, when not produced a single line on the > asymmetric model for the roots server system, when not opted to set a clear > policy favorable to net neutrality. > > MM: I was there, and recall many discussions of mass surveillance. And the > attacks on the unilateral approach to the DNS were mooted by the NTIA > announcement that they would end it. There were no discussions of how to > end it, but if you were paying attention there were many discussions of > what should replace it. > > To overcome the *multistakeholdist* ideology of NetMundial Iniciative, > civil society organizations (as JNC), social movements in networks and > public and private actors need to engage in fights and discussions to build > a new model of IG, which guarantee: a) a worldwide organization for > Internet, that really represents the interests of all nation states > > MM: Wonderful. So it is not the people we want to represent, or even > Internet users and suppliers, but “nation-states?” > > and to ensure net neutrality and respect the Internet as a common good; b) > a worldwide Internet statement that has as principle the protection of > privacy, freedom of expression and to promote free and universal access to > the Internet and free software; c) a court with international > > MM: …because, as we know, nation-states are so devoted to freedom of > expression, privacy and free software! > > > > > -- Hindenburgo Francisco Pires Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro Departamento de Geografia Humana *Sítio-web: http://www.cibergeo.org * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Wed Nov 26 01:40:17 2014 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 06:40:17 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> <5471BC3C.9010602@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <6a2434846af042eca563344396b22218@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> From: Hindenburgo Pires [mailto:hindenburgo at gmail.com] In international diplomacy the term multilateral means much more than "one country one vote", the term multilateral means “several or many sides involved”. MM: No, it doesn’t. “sides” is just a literal translation of the Latin “lateral” but in international relations “multilateral” means “several or many governments involved.” At best this means negotiated consensus agreements among states, and at worst one-country, one vote arrangements, but it ALWAYS means that only states are represented. Multilateral is not the same as undemocratic, undemocratic is the UNILATERALISM and the loss of diplomacy as a primacy of policy. MM: is your thinking about this problem so crabbed that you can only recognize the distinction between multilateral (multiple states) and unilateral (one state)? Have you ever heard of people, organizations, businesses, voluntary associations? The ideology of the unilateralism has worked against the multilateralism, as condition of legitimate social representation, and has destroyed the diplomatic representation of the nation-states. MM: That’s good to know. But if you think I am promoting unilateralism you are ignorant of what I am saying, and if you think multistakeholderism (MS) has anything to do with unilateralism you are wrong about that, too. Although I do not have the desire to make any clarification or etymological essentialist about the origin of the terms stakeholder (see the stakeholder theory in Edward Freeman) and multi-stakeholder, these terms do not mean a representation of plural civil society and more votes, but a representation of interested parties (corporations, businesses, military sectors). MM: I disagree. Pluralism is precisely what MS is about. Indeed, pluralist direct representation would be a much better word for what many of the MS governance institutions stand for than the ugly term MS. Therefore, from a methodological point of view and operational multistakeholdism is not diversity representative, it is the field of inertia representative of hegemonic unilateralism, articulated with the private sectors and military that perpetuate the status quo. Multistakeholdism is a disguised form of corporate unilateralism, the primacy of the discourse of a single State (or an empire) on the other nation-states. MM: What a mouthful. Yes, Mr. Gramsci, I understand where you’re coming from. And I think it is full of beans. You have an idealized notion of the state which sees it as completely free of private sector and military influence and always a legitimate representative of “the people.” Oh, but there’s one big exception: it is the American government (perhaps also the British one) that is somehow corrupt and overbearing; all developing world governments are noble upholders of freedom. Do I have it right? And so the pursuit of justice and freedom in international relations becomes very simple: whatever counters Anglo-American power is good – even if it the countervailing forces are a bunch of one-party states, local kleptocracies, populist mobocracies and post-Leninist “socialist market economy” states. Let us overlook the fact that all states put national security as their top priority and have their own favored business interests and thus are “articulated with the private sectors and military.” As long as it’s not THAT state we’ll be fine. The organizers of the event NetMundial translated erroneously the word of English "multi-stakeholder" as multisectoral. Perhaps by an ideological and non-linguistic issue because the translation of the word for the Portuguese language should be "multiple Interested parties", that does not imply sectors of society, but only corporate interests. MM: So to be interested, one has to be a commercial corporation? No, I think the Netmundial organizers got it right: multi-sectoral is a very good translation, albeit with somewhat corporatist overtones. One can be “interested” in free expression rights, privacy rights, freedom of association, dozens of other things. Open, MS institutions mean multiple interested parties, yes. Here in Brazil, the word "multisectoral" was originally introduced in the early 1990s, and means plurality of sectors engaged in defending the cause environmentalist and was also used in reference to the different currents of environmentalism at the conference Eco-92. Therefore, this concept does not apply to this new context in which there are no sectors dialoguing and deciding on proposals. MM: So what’s wrong with a plurality of sectors engaged in defending the cause of Internet freedom? Many others have developed parallels between the environmental movement and digital rights movement. In NetMundial, representatives of countries, such as Cuba and Russia, who managed to submit their proposals, were only ears, since there was no vote in the plenary session and the final document, according to allegations, was already prepared before the meeting here in Brazil, sponsored by ICANN. The final document was very much a product of the meeting, not prepared in advance. Of course there was a draft, derived from the comments submitted, with which the meeting started, but it went through a lot of change. The questions that we should ask are: When "networks" supersede the nation-states, in a Post-Westphalian neo-liberal conception? MM: That doesn’t quite make sense as a question. Try re-phrasing it. When the warfare state will no longer recognize the cyberspace as the fifth area of control and power? MM: Wait. I thought you were the one who insisted that only nation-states should be represented in these forums. Once you tie your fate to nation-states, then you have committed yourself inexorably to the militarization of cyberspace, because security calculations are what states are all about. All states. And all states engage in mass surveillance, insofar as they have the means to do so. That is why many of us favor the non-state actor approach to Internet governance. The mass surveillance and the installation of state of exception are ideological strategics to the permanence of current unilateralism. MM: Could be. What does that have to do with Netmundial and the MS governance of the Internet? If we look at how this ideology is forming his followers in all countries, offering top-down, courses, scholarships and funding for people who advocate this ideas, it is clear that are not sectors of civil society who are advocates the “multistakeholdism”. So…we are not civil society, then. What are we? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Wed Nov 26 01:41:19 2014 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 06:41:19 +0000 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <20141125145359.GA9015@hserus.net> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <3D1E1CA9-1F08-4EC0-891C-4C39E3953A0D@difference.com.au> <54747D86.4020906@itforchange.net> <54749584.1080708@wzb.eu> <20141125145359.GA9015@hserus.net> Message-ID: <84cab200a68d4814bb646b57d32fda9d@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > it is. It certainly isn't any sort of contract enforcible in law. Unless this is one > of those "neo lessigisms", "my interpretation of a mailing list's mores is law" Could we say, um, lessig is mores? -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Wed Nov 26 02:04:12 2014 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 09:04:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <84cab200a68d4814bb646b57d32fda9d@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <3D1E1CA9-1F08-4EC0-891C-4C39E3953A0D@difference.com.au> <54747D86.4020906@itforchange.net> <54749584.1080708@wzb.eu> <20141125145359.GA9015@hserus.net> <84cab200a68d4814bb646b57d32fda9d@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20141126070411.GA24677@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> On Nov 26 06:41, Milton L Mueller (mueller at syr.edu) wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > it is. It certainly isn't any sort of contract enforcible in law. > > Unless this is one of those "neo lessigisms", "my interpretation > > of a mailing list's mores is law" > Could we say, um, lessig is mores? O tempora, o mores! -- Tapani Tarvainen -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 26 02:11:11 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 12:41:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <20141126070411.GA24677@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <3D1E1CA9-1F08-4EC0-891C-4C39E3953A0D@difference.com.au> <54747D86.4020906@itforchange.net> <54749584.1080708@wzb.eu> <20141125145359.GA9015@hserus.net> <84cab200a68d4814bb646b57d32fda9d@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <20141126070411.GA24677@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: <5450C73E-B33A-4466-AFFA-E7F3F3B376B8@hserus.net> I rather think Milton was channelling Big Brother rather than Cicero :) --srs (iPad) > On 26-Nov-2014, at 12:34, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > On Nov 26 06:41, Milton L Mueller (mueller at syr.edu) wrote: > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> it is. It certainly isn't any sort of contract enforcible in law. >>> Unless this is one of those "neo lessigisms", "my interpretation >>> of a mailing list's mores is law" > >> Could we say, um, lessig is mores? > > O tempora, o mores! > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 26 02:14:29 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 12:44:29 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <6a2434846af042eca563344396b22218@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> <5471BC3C.9010602@cafonso.ca> <6a2434846af042eca563344396b22218@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <3437C8F6-790B-4CB9-A9A8-4AD30EAABEBE@hserus.net> > > So…we are not civil society, then. What are we? > > > As all the infighting and backbiting clearly suggests, an uncivil society. Civility goes out of the door when blind ideology comes into the picture. --srs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Wed Nov 26 02:17:13 2014 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 09:17:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <5450C73E-B33A-4466-AFFA-E7F3F3B376B8@hserus.net> References: <3D1E1CA9-1F08-4EC0-891C-4C39E3953A0D@difference.com.au> <54747D86.4020906@itforchange.net> <54749584.1080708@wzb.eu> <20141125145359.GA9015@hserus.net> <84cab200a68d4814bb646b57d32fda9d@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <20141126070411.GA24677@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <5450C73E-B33A-4466-AFFA-E7F3F3B376B8@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20141126071712.GB24677@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> Are you sure it wasn't Cato? As in, "NMI delenda est!" -- Tapani Tarvainen On Nov 26 12:41, Suresh Ramasubramanian (suresh at hserus.net) wrote: > I rather think Milton was channelling Big Brother rather than Cicero :) > > --srs (iPad) > > > On 26-Nov-2014, at 12:34, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > > > On Nov 26 06:41, Milton L Mueller (mueller at syr.edu) wrote: > > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>> it is. It certainly isn't any sort of contract enforcible in law. > >>> Unless this is one of those "neo lessigisms", "my interpretation > >>> of a mailing list's mores is law" > > > >> Could we say, um, lessig is mores? > > > > O tempora, o mores! > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 26 02:52:30 2014 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 13:22:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <20141126071712.GB24677@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> References: <3D1E1CA9-1F08-4EC0-891C-4C39E3953A0D@difference.com.au> <54747D86.4020906@itforchange.net> <54749584.1080708@wzb.eu> <20141125145359.GA9015@hserus.net> <84cab200a68d4814bb646b57d32fda9d@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <20141126070411.GA24677@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <5450C73E-B33A-4466-AFFA-E7F3F3B376B8@hserus.net> <20141126071712.GB24677@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: Oratio in Catillinam Prima in Senatu Habita http://goo.gl/qS6pxT --srs (iPad) > On 26-Nov-2014, at 12:47, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > Are you sure it wasn't Cato? > > As in, "NMI delenda est!" > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > >> On Nov 26 12:41, Suresh Ramasubramanian (suresh at hserus.net) wrote: >> >> I rather think Milton was channelling Big Brother rather than Cicero :) >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >>> On 26-Nov-2014, at 12:34, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >>> >>> On Nov 26 06:41, Milton L Mueller (mueller at syr.edu) wrote: >>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>>>> it is. It certainly isn't any sort of contract enforcible in law. >>>>> Unless this is one of those "neo lessigisms", "my interpretation >>>>> of a mailing list's mores is law" >>> >>>> Could we say, um, lessig is mores? >>> >>> O tempora, o mores! >>> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 joly at punkcast.com Wed Nov 26 03:11:15 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 03:11:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?REMOTE_PARTICIPATION=3A_=23ArabIGF_in_Beir?= =?UTF-8?Q?ut_=E2=80=93_Nov_26-27?= Message-ID: Just started joly posted: "Today and tomorrow November 26 - 27 2014 the third annual meeting of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF-III) is taking place in Beirut, Lebanon. Arab IGF tackles a wide spectrum of issues of regulatory and policy nature within the sphere of Internet" [image: Arab IGF 2014]Today and tomorrow *November 26 - 27 2014* the third annual meeting of the* Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF-III) *is taking place in Beirut, Lebanon. Arab IGF tackles a wide spectrum of issues of regulatory and policy nature within the sphere of Internet industry and Internet use, including: accelerating broadband penetration; development of its applications; promoting local content; user rights; policies for critical Internet resources; cybersecurity; protecting privacy; youth and the Internet; and innovation enabling Internet policies. Speakers include: Raul Echeberría, Vice President, Internet Society, and Richard Hill. Remote participation is possible via webex. Beirut is UTC+2 = 7 hours ahead of NYC. *What: Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF-III) Where: Beirut, Lebanon When: Wednesday 26 November 2014 - Thursday 27 November 2014 Agenda: http://beta.igfarab.org/UploadedFiles/Files/Program.pdf Remote participation: http://www.escwa.un.org/information/meetings/editor/Download.asp?table_name=events_eventDetails&field_name=id&FileID=13628 Twitter: #ArabIGF * Comment See all comments -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Wed Nov 26 04:54:59 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 05:54:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <54747D86.4020906@itforchange.net> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <3D1E1CA9-1F08-4EC0-891C-4C39E3953A0D@difference.com.au> <54747D86.4020906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder, You ask for my opinion. I think that there are two discussions here, and they are becoming confused. One is about the NETmundial Initiative (NMI), an assessment of its value if any, and of the dangers it might represent. The other is whether civil society should engage itself in the NMI process. Engaging in the process has nothing necessarily to do with approval of NMI. The response of some people is "have nothing to do with it", others prefer to retain a voice in the proceedings. As for IGC - I have no legal training and cannot speak to "legality". My feeling is that the time to complain about a process is at the beginning, rather than when it has reached a conclusion. The Charter seems to me to give co - coordinators space to deal with matters that are very urgent. The important thing is that there should be transparency and consultation. In this case there were both - transparency and consultation - and the consensus coming out of this is that IGC as a group prefers to keep the line of communication open. Mawaki has worked very hard on this as the IGC representative on CSCG, and deserves our thanks. There is another place where the discussion is confused. The CSCG is an appropriate context for discussion of whether or not civil society should join with NMI, but absent at least a rough consensus, and present such widely opposed views, my own feeling is that, unless things change, the CSCG should now withdraw from the selection process. However the situation is changing very rapidly, and the nature of NMI is changing with it. I hope very much that at the end of the day we won't find that we have thrown out the IGC baby in the NMI bathwater. Deirdre On 25 Nov 2014 09:01, "parminder" wrote: > > Mawaki > > I am sure that you know that there is a method listed in the IGC charter to take collective decisions, and the method you are following is nowhere close to that.. > > In the circumstances, any correspondence you will make on IGC;s behalf as representing an IGC decision on this issue will be illegal. > > parminder > > PS: Apart from the fact that you are simply not authorised to make a decision on IGC's behalf, especially on such a contested matter as the implicated one, the various 'considerations' and 'notings' that you base your 'decision' on our either faulty or heavily contested, and you surely know that. > > Interestingly, you have spoken of the need to take forward to evolve and improve some sections of the Sao Paolo NM declaration, whereas a lot of civil society supporters of the new NMI as well its promoters inside WEF are insisting that the *new NMI is not at all a normative venue but is bacially a platform for project based cooperation*. Now, with such a faulty, or atleast contested, interpretation of the central purpose of the new NMI, how can you reach a decision on the IGC's behalf. > > This is just one of the faulty/ contested considerations that you have relied on, and there are many others that I can refer to. > > In the circumstances, please withdraw your ' decision'. Also for Deirdre's comments. Please let us know what you think of the legality of this 'decision'. > > > > > On Tuesday 25 November 2014 02:56 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> I have listened to your views, to your fears and concerns as well as to your hopes and support. This one is really difficult a decision, probably the most difficult IGC decision I will have to be involved in before the expiration of my term. >> >> Taking into consideration all the responses, comments, explanations, positions and advice received on the IGC list in response to this call, whether under this email thread or in a different one since this call has been posted; >> >> Noting that Deirdre, my co-coordinatorship mate, has also already expressed herself on this question; >> >> Observing that most of the concerns and the strongest ones expressed here relate more (albeit not exclusively) to the presence or participation of the WEF as such in the NMI than to anything else; >> >> Considering that the NMI is a different undertaking from the WEF; >> >> Noting that the modus operandi of WEF may in itself be diametrically opposed to, or at least is different from, the open, transparent, bottom-up and consensus-seeking mode of operation that we value as civil society in the IG field and which ICG,br and IGC agree to promote and uphold in carrying forward the legacy of NETmundial2014; >> >> Noting that in that regard the goals pursued by WEF in global governance may be at odds with the goals of civil society, and as a result there are most likely many questions on which civil society and WEF may not agree on in one increasingly prominent area of global governance to date (i.e, the internet governance area); >> >> Noting that the IG space is one that is meant to be open to all stakeholders who are willing to contribute, as long as they accept to live up to that openness and the other basic rules of operation mentioned above from the CS standpoint, without the pre-requisite of agreeing with each others on their worldview or even on a set of core substantive issues; >> >> Noting that currently, the NMI is the beginning of something that still needs to be shaped and can be shaped as have shown so far the amendments that have been made by its proponents to their original plans after CS feedback and criticism; >> >> Understanding that those amendments may have been made in order to lure CS into NMI and that they may not guarantee any type of outcome on the long run unless CS remains vigilant and keeps fighting for the outcomes it wishes for or supports; >> >> Noting that the outcome of NETmundial2014 is not perfect and thus _at least_ some sections of CS do not consider it as final in the sense that some of its provisions may still need to evolve and be improved, but that would be better achieved through the continuous collaborative work of the various stakeholders rather than by fiat from one stakeholder (group); >> >> Considering that if CS resolves to join NMI, it is not lending legitimacy to WEF in any way but to NMI which has already gained some legitimacy by the CGI.br being one of its co-founders and will further gain legitimacy by having a delegate of the IGF-MAG join the NMI's Coordination Council (assuming its current design is implemented)*; >> >> I would recommend that IGC engages with the NMI process by participating in the vetting and selection by CSCG of civil society nominees to the NMI Coordination Council. >> On the IGC behalf, I will further advise and support the idea that the CSCG assorts the CS participation with a number of conditions that will be meant to make sure the continuous participation of the CS and its appointees is subject to being accountable to their constituents. >> >> CSCG will be informed immediately of this outcome, that is, the acceptance of IGC to go forward with NMI. >> >> Thank you for your participation in this consultation. >> Best regards, >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> (*) Excerpt from the https://www.netmundial.org/ >> The Coordination Council will have a total of 25 individual members: 20 distributed across four sectors and five geographies, and additional seats (one each) for the organizational founders CGI.br and ICANN; one for the World Economic Forum in its role of supporter of the Initiative; as well as one seat each for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) and the technical community (I* group). >> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 26 04:55:02 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 20:55:02 +1100 Subject: [governance] CSCG - participation in selection of civil society representatives for NMI Coordination Council Message-ID: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> Dear Civil Society members, After a substantial consultation with members across many different constituencies, the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) has decided that, in accordance with its procedures and with the conditions in the letter below, it will engage in the process of selection of self nominated civil society representatives for the Co ordination Council of the Netmundial Initiative (NMI). In doing so, we acknowledge and respect that Just Net Coalition has determined not to engage in this process, and that there are many civil society people in other coalitions who would also prefer not to engage at this time. For those who choose to engage; if you wish to be a candidate, you must complete the form which can be found at https://www.netmundial.org/coordination-council-nominations, together with the associated documentation, by December 6. Please note that CSCG will not be endorsing nominations but playing a selection role as outlined in the letter below. Thank you everyone who participated in this consultation and freely expressed their opinions. Below is a letter recently sent to the organisers outlining CSCG’s position and involvement. LETTER TO NMI TRANSITIONAL COUNCIL Dear Virgilio, Richard and Fadi, As members of the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG), we write to express our appreciation for your openness in working with us to negotiate the terms of civil society’s participation in the NETmundial Initiative; in particular, by accommodating our expectation, drawn from the NETmundial Principles, that if we are to participate on the Coordination Council, we should nominate our own representatives. Since our initial agreement on this principle, we have been consulting with our constituents about whether civil society ought to avail itself of this opportunity at all. We must say that this has been a difficult question, at the end of which there remain some very significant misgivings across a broad segment of civil society about the merits of our prospective involvement. Among the underlying concerns of many are that the involvement of the World Economic Forum in the initiative signals an attempt by economic and political elites to secure a central role in Internet governance; that the Initiative has been organised in a top-down manner that privileges its three promoters above other stakeholders; and that devoting time and resources to the Initiative may detract from other processes such as the Internet Governance Forum. On the other hand, others recognise the opportunity that exists for civil society to help shape the NETmundial Initiative into a mechanism (but not the only mechanism) that can advance the NETmundial roadmap. Despite significant shortcomings in the NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement stemming from influence exerted by powerful actors towards the end of the process, much of the document, including the roadmap, does enjoy broad civil society support. OUR INVOLVEMENT AND PROCESS In the end we have decided to facilitate the involvement of those from civil society who do wish to apply for membership of the Coordination Council, while acknowledging others have decided as a matter of principle that they do not wish to be involved—and indeed would rather that civil society did not participate at all. We acknowledge and respect that our colleagues from Just Net Coalition have taken that position and will not be participating with us in this exercise. The process we have agreed to work with is 1. At the close of nominations (December 6), CSCG Nomcom will review all nominations for civil society participation and evaluate each candidate’s suitability. 2. CSCG Nomcom will recommend one candidate per geographic region, and submits names to Transitional Council with reasons. 3. If necessary, NMI Transitional Council will convene a (virtual) meeting with CSCG Nomcom to discuss any issues arising, with a view to reaching a rough consensus agreement if there are any issues with our nominations. If there is a strong dissenting voice from another area of civil society they may also be invited to participate after discussion. CONDITIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS Although we will work with the NETmundial Initiative’s organising partners to select willing civil society representatives from amongst those who self-nominate through the Initiative’s nomination process, we also outline five simple conditions that we believe representatives are likely to affirm following their appointment to the Coordination Council: 1. We would like the Co-ordination Council to discuss whether CGI.br, WEF and ICANN should have permanent membership of the Coordination Council and what that implies. Whilst it is acknowledged that the above organisations are jointly funding the operational expenses of the Initiative for its first year, this might not remain so. We are not convinced that funding support is sufficient justification for such a role, and we believe that the full Coordination Council itself should approve any permanent seats and what that implies. 2. To the extent that a stated objective of the Coordination Council is "promoting the distributed Internet governance model,” we want to point out that the status quo in Internet governance does not represent the fulfilment of this model. The NETmundial Initiative should not be used to legitimise existing inequalities and deficiencies of the present system and should not hold civil society back from advocating necessary reforms. 3. While we acknowledge the progressive elements of the NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement, it is not the final and definitive statement of Internet governance principles; indeed the Statement itself acknowledges that it is only a work in progress. So we do not see the NETmundial roadmap as an immutable document. We look forward to its refinement and/or augmentation and hope that NMI ensures a bottom up collaborative process to undertake this work. 4. A key performance indicator for the NETmundial Initiative must be the extent to which its activities strengthen and support the Internet Governance Forum, which remains the most significant global hub for general multi-stakeholder Internet governance policy discussions. If the IGF develops the capacity to assume further activities that currently might not fall within their capabilities, this should be facilitated, not opposed. 5. We will wish to evaluate from time to time whether this engagement is providing effective and worthwhile results for our constituencies. We trust that our participation in this Initiative can be accepted with these conditions, and we look forward to working with you to select a balanced, inclusive and capable slate of civil society nominees to join the Coordination Council. Sincerely, CSCG Nomcom for NMI Co ordination Council Participating member coalitions Association for Progressive Communications, represented by Chat Garcia Ramilo, Deputy Executive Director Best Bits, represented by Jeremy Malcolm, Steering Committee member Diplo Foundation, represented by Ginger (Virginia) Paque, Internet Governance Programmes Internet Governance Caucus, represented by Dr Mawaki Chango, Co-Coordinator The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) represented by Robin Gross, NCSG Executive Committee Ian Peter, Independent Chair -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 26 05:02:37 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 15:32:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <3D1E1CA9-1F08-4EC0-891C-4C39E3953A0D@difference.com.au> , Message-ID: <5475A53D.6000305@itforchange.net> On Monday 24 November 2014 10:06 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > I am MORE in favor IGC engaging with NMI because: > > 1. > the rationale and explanations from Carlos Afonso and cgi.br > colleagues are clear and sensible; those who helped pull off > NetMundial have earned IGC’s support > 2. > The views of the I-orgs, who were against IGF before they were for > it (cough cough), are also clear but less convincing, seeing as > those orgs do not claim to be the appropriate venues themselves to > address the range of issues likely to be (in my opinion) brought > to NMI, and offer no alternative. Should NMI prove to be of some > merit, no doubt the I orgs will engage at a later date. > 3. > Likewise, the more JNC has explained its views, the less weight > they hold, seeing as they appear focused on a specifically anti-US > big (internet) business animus , completely neglecting to note the > new giants on the block such as Alibaba's record-setting IPO which > has resulted in a firm that has a market cap far exceeding the > Amazon boogeyman, as well as Walmart's. (not that there is > anything wrong with Alibaba, but obsessively picking on the little > guy/small(er) business - Amazon ; ) - seems to be misplaced and > unhelpful to multistakeholder dialog and governance. > JNC confronts illegal concentration and use of power, wherever, and done by whosoever. In the current 'global Internet' scenario, it is the US political establishment and US based mega Internet companies that have shown the greatest proclivity towards such concentration and misuse of digital power. This perception is shared by an overwhelming number of people the world over. If this is not your perception, then well, I think you are simply wrong, and I cannot do much about it. As and when Alibaba poses a problem to the global public interest we will speak up against it, be assured of that. It is fine if sitting in the US, you see a perfectly good world, with no bad guys that need to be confronted. However, marginalised groups in marginalised areas, who bear the brunt of holding the wrong end of the stick of global structural power, are unable to be so sanguine and try their best to oppose wrongful/ illegitimate structural power, and wherever possible wrest some empowerment for themselves. That is what JNC's advocacy and work is about. > 1. > (OK to be fair JNC is in good company picking on Amazon, since > like JNC, Wall Street is also giving Amazon a hard time of late, > as are European publishers Hachette and Springer who are also > managing to push back against Amazon themselves. Anyway, > this anti-Amazon obsession of some is but a sideshow/distraction > to consideration of broader Internet governance issues and should > therefore carry limited weight in IGC's own considerations, > although of course everyone is free to voice whatever views they > wish, whether of Amazon or something more relevant to the issues > at hand. > 2. > Last but not least, the historical triumph of - cgi.br and ICANN > coopting WEF - > Please do not twist history to create self serving triumphs... It is fairly well know, including to you, that it is ICANN and the WEF who first cooked up the NMI broth, and then when it did not work our in the first round in August - September, and they faced a lot of opposition, they thought of this brilliant idea of coopting CGi-Br . And so in the version 2 of NMI we see CGI.Br who wasnt there in ver 1. So, you got it backwards on who coopted whom... And you would know more as the initiative proceeds, and can see who would call the shots. Further, keeping aside who among the the currently listed three partners coopted whom among themselves, it is certainly clear that civil society is being coopted. parminder > 1. > to facilitate industry engagement in broader IG policy issues > discussions and implementations should be recognized for what it > is, and not mistaken for a sign of the failure but rather is a > mark of success/the mainstreaming of Internet governance, as > matters of truly global Import and requiring truly global solutions. > > > Sent from Windows Mail > > *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma > *Sent:* ‎Sunday‎, ‎November‎ ‎23‎, ‎2014 ‎10‎:‎42‎ ‎PM > *To:* > > > It is Monday 3:40 AM GMT. > > I am STILL in favour of IGC engaging with NMI. > > Nnenna > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Sivasubramanian M > > wrote: > > Dear David Cake, > > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:47 AM, David Cake > > wrote: > > Siva, there is a big difference between including WEF in the > process, and having them run the process by their own rules. > > I *welcome* the involvement of WEF in open, participatory, > multi-stakeholder spaces - they are in a good position to > eloquently express some of the positions of the commercial > sector. Often, commercial representatives within IG processes > often represent small sectors of the commercial world with > very strong biases towards particular issues (such as telcos > and copyright cartels), WEF might be able to provide a broader > commercial perspective, and maybe commercial representation in > IG spaces might not be quite so dominated by a small cabal. > And note, welcoming the involvement of such organisations is > not the same as having sympathy for their policy positions and > actions, simply I'd rather debate those positions in an open, > transparent, multi-stakeholder fora, rather than have to > battle covert lobbying and decision making in closed or opaque > fora in which CS has no voice. > > But I *oppose* considering WEF processes as equivalent to open > multi-stakeholder ones in legitimacy. WEFs own processes are > not open, they are strictly gatekeepered. And they are > commercial led processes, with commercial goals. WEF is, of > course, welcome to keep doing those things, but such processes > should not be considered legitimate means of producing > multi-stakeholder transnational consensus. And this NMI > process certainly started with assumptions that reflect the > problems with WEF processes, such as choosing the CS sector > representatives that the WEF wanted. > > > > 1. NETmundial is not in any way 'folded into' the WEF, so it does > not become part of WEF. WEF is to be seen as an organization that > has joined other organizations in this initiative. WEF processes > may not be open, (it is upto the WEF to decide on its own style of > managing their business forum), but as a participant of the > NETmundial Initiative, WEF may not overwhelm this process with its > own style. > > 2. NETMundial Initiative is a multi-stakeholder process where each > stakeholder group would balance the other groups. ​If the initial > NMI processes weren't perfect, I would rather consider it not so > well thought of - in its early stages. > > As Harmut Glaser says, "It is up for the community to transform > NMI into something that is concrete and useful for the advancement > of IG in full respects of the principles enshrined in the > NETmundial declaration. > ​"​ > > Sivasubramanian M > > > So, yes, bringing in the WEF can be considered a positive in > some ways - but not in the way the NMI process has gone so far. > > > > David > > > > On 19 Nov 2014, at 5:21 pm, Sivasubramanian M > > wrote: > > Dear Guru, > > ​(You (Guru) said: ​ > WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have > seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS > Declaration of Principles from the activities of > transnational corporations. Apart from > using/monetising our data for their commercial gains > in authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, > their unregulated work also is structuring our > participation in the information society in many > unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how > many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on > extraordinary programme of global surveillance > > > ​If such as strong generalization of big business is to be > accepted as fair and valid, then all those who subscribe > to such a generalization may have to go back to the WSIS > declarations and summarily exclude Business as a > Stakeholder group, and then declare that Internet > Governance ought to be a process with two stakeholder > groups - Government + Civil Society. No, no, on second > thoughts I see your reference to Snowden and USG+, so the > Civil Society could exclude Government from Internet > Governance, and declare that Internet Governance must be > reinvented as a single stakeholder group process, with > Civil Society as the only stakeholder group. > > Seriously, i > f WSIS had committed to build a " > people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented > Information Society > ​ ", what happens to inclusiveness and development with > such a position on Big Business? ​ > > > And, why this hatred for big business? Most progress in > this world has happened because of enterprise, much more > because of business than because of Government. Granted, > some of the information technology big businesses have > worked with Governments on surveillance designs, and even > there, we do not know how of much of such cooperation came > out of a desire for profit and how much of it was forced > by arm-twisting or by milder pressures in so many subtle > and imaginative ways. > > Irrespective of how WEF's role has been articulated at the > moment, it is a very positive development to bring in the WEF > . > ​ > WEF participation suddenly expands business participation > to a world of business outside the IT sector, so WEF's > attention to IG issues might by itself act as a balancing > influence within the corporate world, because many of > these Big Businesses are Internet "users" themselves. > ​Some of these Big Businesses are possibly charitable in > unknown ways. What is needed here is strong support at the > moment, and w > e could > ​eventually ​ > work towards a greater balance across stakeholder groups.​ > ​ > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Guru > > wrote: > > Dear Mawaki > > I would like to cite from two sources: > > A. WSIS Declaration of Principles - > http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html > (the very first two clauses) > > 1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the > world*, *assembled in Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 > for the first phase of the World Summit on the > Information Society,* declare our common desire and > commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and > development-oriented Information Society, where > everyone can create, access, utilize and share > information and knowledge, enabling individuals, > communities and peoples to achieve their full > potential in promoting their sustainable development > and improving their quality of life, premised on the > purposes and principles of the Charter of the United > Nations and respecting fully and upholding the > Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > 2. Our challenge* is to harness the potential of > information and communication technology to promote > the development goals of the Millennium Declaration, > namely the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; > achievement of universal primary education; promotion > of gender equality and empowerment of women; reduction > of child mortality; improvement of maternal health; to > combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring > environmental sustainability; and development of > global partnerships for development for the attainment > of a more peaceful, just and prosperous world. We also > reiterate our commitment to the achievement of > sustainable development and agreed development goals, > as contained in the Johannesburg Declaration and Plan > of Implementation and the Monterrey Consensus, and > other outcomes of relevant United Nations Summits. > > I now will cite from the WEF site - > http://www.weforum.org/our-members > > Begin > Our Members > The World Economic Forum is a membership organization. > Our Members comprise 1,000 of the world’s top > corporations, global enterprises usually with more > than US$ 5 billion in turnover. These enterprises rank > among the top companies within their industry and play > a leading role in shaping the future of their industry > and region. Some of our Member companies join the > Forum’s Strategic and Industry Partnership > communities, which are designed to deepen their > engagement with the Forum’s events, project and > initiatives. The Forum’s Members are at the heart of > all our activities. > End > > It is clear that WEF is a primarily group of big > businesses. We have seen the increasing danger to the > ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the > activities of transnational corporations. Apart from > using/monetising our data for their commercial gains > in authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, > their unregulated work also is structuring our > participation in the information society in many > unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how > many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on > extraordinary programme of global surveillance, which > helps them in their goals of political-economic > domination / colonisation > > Participating in forums anchored in such a space will > only legitimise their power. I am clear that IGC > should not participate in the NMI. > > thanks and regards > Guru > > Gurumurthy Kasinathan > Director, IT for Change > In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations > ECOSOC > www.ITforChange.Net | > Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 > 26654134 , 26536890 > http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum > > > > On Tuesday 18 November 2014 05:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, > so I won't repeat > > the background details. In the middle of the night > last night, before > > hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day > playing catch-up with > > deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded > the NMI > > Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. > Basically, they are > > willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part > of the NMI > > Coordination Council. > > > > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the > membership of CSCG > > member entities as to whether to get involved in the > NMI process or > > not. I believe this is the last step in the > consultations we've been > > having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the > CSCG and with the > > membership of our respective organizations.) After > this we should be > > able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite > position about > > our participation in the NMI process. > > > > So what do you think? Please get right to the point > and be brief. > > State your preference for IGC Involvement or No > involvement and, if > > you care to provide us with such, I would be > grateful to you if you > > could keep your supporting argument in one short > paragraph (as we > > just want to take the "temperature of the room" if > you see what I > > mean.) > > > > Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. > > > > 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 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 26 05:39:56 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 16:09:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <3D1E1CA9-1F08-4EC0-891C-4C39E3953A0D@difference.com.au> <54747D86.4020906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5475ADFC.1080602@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 26 November 2014 03:24 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > Dear Parminder, > > You ask for my opinion. > I think that there are two discussions here, and they are becoming > confused. > One is about the NETmundial Initiative (NMI), an assessment of its > value if any, and of the dangers it might represent. > The other is whether civil society should engage itself in the NMI > process. > Engaging in the process has nothing necessarily to do with approval of > NMI. The response of some people is "have nothing to do with it", > others prefer to retain a voice in the proceedings. > Dear Deirdre > As for IGC - > I have no legal training and cannot speak to "legality". My feeling is > As office holders of the IGC, you cannot say that you cannot infer from or interpret the rules of the caucus and you just speak from your feelings... You need to speak and act from your interpretations of the rules laid out in the IGC charter, which interpretation itself of course is subject to further due process. > that the time to complain about a process is at the beginning, rather > than when it has reached a conclusion. > I completely fail to understand what you mean here... Cocos sought feedback on IGC's participation in the NMI. Many including myself gave feedback. Cocos are entirely within their right to seek any kind of feedback... Why and how can I object to that. Obtaining feedback does not automatically lead to conclusion of an IGC decision, unless of course co cos can consider it a consensus decision, which I am sure you are not calling it. Are you? Relevant section from the Charter "The IGC will work on the basis of consensus as much as is possible. When complete consensus cannot be reached the coordinators will be jointly empowered to call rough consensus. Rough consensus, for the purposes of the IGC, is defined as the point at which an overwhelming majority of the IGC appears to agree with a position with any dissenting minority view having been well discussed and respected. Rough consensus can only be called after a serious attempt has been made to accommodate minority points of view. When both coordinators agree that it is necessary to make a rough consensus call, the coordinator will announce the text of the consensus decision on the mailing list and allow for at least fourty eight (48) hours of final discussion." Have you not read this, or do you deliberately refuse to follow the due process? > The Charter seems to me to give co - coordinators space to deal with > matters that are very urgent. > No, the charter gives you no such cover in the matter and contexts like the one involving IGC joining the NMI (first, this is not making an on the spot statement, second you have had weeks to seek this decision in a legal manner). You are passers trying to take the shelter of the below provision which, it is patent, simply does not apply. "Normally, whenever there is sufficient time for a statement to be discussed and approved by the caucus as a whole, the decision procedure outlined above will be required. However, there will be occasions /*when members of the caucus will be attending meetings and will be presented with the opportunity to make statements*/ that /*require a very quick response*/. In these cases, while it is still required that the caucus be informed of an upcoming statement and its contents as soon as possible the following rule may be applied when necessary." (emphasis added) > The important thing is that there should be transparency and consultation. > The important thing is to maintain the letter and spirit of the rules of the group of which you have been chosen as an office bearer. > > In this case there were both - transparency and consultation - and the > consensus coming out of this is that IGC as a group prefers to keep > the line of communication open. > Consensus!!?? Are you declaring a consensus of view inside the IGC to go with the NMI .. Please make it clear, the term consensus has a clear meaning implied in the IGC rules. > Mawaki has worked very hard on this as the IGC representative on CSCG, > and deserves our thanks. > > There is another place where the discussion is confused. The CSCG is > an appropriate context for discussion of whether or not civil society > should join with NMI, > No, I am not confused. This is the place for the IGC to decide whether it will like to join the NMI or not (one of the most important CS decisions and one of the most divisive one in a long time) and accordingly what would its rep communicate to the CSCG. CSCG just compiles views, seeks clarifications etc, and acts accordingly. It was specifically made clear through interventions of many members during the last round of NMI related discussions in Aug-Sept that CSG has no such role of discussing such things by itself and deciding them (something which is clear in the formative documents of the CSCG, which should be known to all, and certainly to IGC's cocos.) > but absent at least a rough consensus, and present such widely opposed > views, > Deirdre, I am not sure I understand you... You seem to suggest that there is some kind of consensus inside the IGC to join up with NMI but an absence of even a rough consensus overall in civil society to join in. But I saw at least as many dissenting views inside the IGC as outside in this matter, and so i am just not clear what you are saying here. > my own feeling is that, unless things change, the CSCG should now > withdraw from the selection process. > Feelings do not matter much I think, what Mawaki and you communicate to the CSCG does. (BTW, can you please share what precisely was communicated on IGC's behalf to the CSCG, as an IGC member I need to know).... As you would have seen from Ian's email, despite your feeling, but presumably based on IGC coco's communication to him, he has announced a process to cooperating with WEF's NMI to select civil society nominations. > > However the situation is changing very rapidly, and the nature of NMI > is changing with it. > > I hope very much that at the end of the day we won't find that we have > thrown out the IGC baby in the NMI bathwater. > A considerable harm would have been done to the no doubt already sick IGC baby if co-cos go ahead with their illegal act and an illegal communication of what has been presented as a decision of the IGC. I myself very much hope we will be spared such grave harm to the IGC. parminder > Deirdre > > On 25 Nov 2014 09:01, "parminder" > wrote: > > > > Mawaki > > > > I am sure that you know that there is a method listed in the IGC > charter to take collective decisions, and the method you are following > is nowhere close to that.. > > > > In the circumstances, any correspondence you will make on IGC;s > behalf as representing an IGC decision on this issue will be illegal. > > > > parminder > > > > PS: Apart from the fact that you are simply not authorised to make a > decision on IGC's behalf, especially on such a contested matter as the > implicated one, the various 'considerations' and 'notings' that you > base your 'decision' on our either faulty or heavily contested, and > you surely know that. > > > > Interestingly, you have spoken of the need to take forward to evolve > and improve some sections of the Sao Paolo NM declaration, whereas a > lot of civil society supporters of the new NMI as well its promoters > inside WEF are insisting that the *new NMI is not at all a normative > venue but is bacially a platform for project based cooperation*. Now, > with such a faulty, or atleast contested, interpretation of the > central purpose of the new NMI, how can you reach a decision on the > IGC's behalf. > > > > This is just one of the faulty/ contested considerations that you > have relied on, and there are many others that I can refer to. > > > > In the circumstances, please withdraw your ' decision'. Also for > Deirdre's comments. Please let us know what you think of the legality > of this 'decision'. > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday 25 November 2014 02:56 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > >> > >> Dear All, > >> > >> I have listened to your views, to your fears and concerns as well > as to your hopes and support. This one is really difficult a decision, > probably the most difficult IGC decision I will have to be involved in > before the expiration of my term. > >> > >> Taking into consideration all the responses, comments, > explanations, positions and advice received on the IGC list in > response to this call, whether under this email thread or in a > different one since this call has been posted; > >> > >> Noting that Deirdre, my co-coordinatorship mate, has also already > expressed herself on this question; > >> > >> Observing that most of the concerns and the strongest ones > expressed here relate more (albeit not exclusively) to the presence or > participation of the WEF as such in the NMI than to anything else; > >> > >> Considering that the NMI is a different undertaking from the WEF; > >> > >> Noting that the modus operandi of WEF may in itself be > diametrically opposed to, or at least is different from, the open, > transparent, bottom-up and consensus-seeking mode of operation that we > value as civil society in the IG field and which ICG,br and IGC agree > to promote and uphold in carrying forward the legacy of NETmundial2014; > >> > >> Noting that in that regard the goals pursued by WEF in global > governance may be at odds with the goals of civil society, and as a > result there are most likely many questions on which civil society and > WEF may not agree on in one increasingly prominent area of global > governance to date (i.e, the internet governance area); > >> > >> Noting that the IG space is one that is meant to be open to all > stakeholders who are willing to contribute, as long as they accept to > live up to that openness and the other basic rules of operation > mentioned above from the CS standpoint, without the pre-requisite of > agreeing with each others on their worldview or even on a set of core > substantive issues; > >> > >> Noting that currently, the NMI is the beginning of something that > still needs to be shaped and can be shaped as have shown so far the > amendments that have been made by its proponents to their original > plans after CS feedback and criticism; > >> > >> Understanding that those amendments may have been made in order to > lure CS into NMI and that they may not guarantee any type of outcome > on the long run unless CS remains vigilant and keeps fighting for the > outcomes it wishes for or supports; > >> > >> Noting that the outcome of NETmundial2014 is not perfect and thus > _at least_ some sections of CS do not consider it as final in the > sense that some of its provisions may still need to evolve and be > improved, but that would be better achieved through the continuous > collaborative work of the various stakeholders rather than by fiat > from one stakeholder (group); > >> > >> Considering that if CS resolves to join NMI, it is not lending > legitimacy to WEF in any way but to NMI which has already gained some > legitimacy by the CGI.br being one of its co-founders and will further > gain legitimacy by having a delegate of the IGF-MAG join the NMI's > Coordination Council (assuming its current design is implemented)*; > >> > >> I would recommend that IGC engages with the NMI process by > participating in the vetting and selection by CSCG of civil society > nominees to the NMI Coordination Council. > >> On the IGC behalf, I will further advise and support the idea that > the CSCG assorts the CS participation with a number of conditions that > will be meant to make sure the continuous participation of the CS and > its appointees is subject to being accountable to their constituents. > >> > >> CSCG will be informed immediately of this outcome, that is, the > acceptance of IGC to go forward with NMI. > >> > >> Thank you for your participation in this consultation. > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Mawaki > >> > >> > >> (*) Excerpt from the https://www.netmundial.org/ > >> The Coordination Council will have a total of 25 individual > members: 20 distributed across four sectors and five geographies, and > additional seats (one each) for the organizational founders CGI.br and > ICANN; one for the World Economic Forum in its role of supporter of > the Initiative; as well as one seat each for the IGF Multistakeholder > Advisory Group (MAG) and the technical community (I* group). > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 26 06:07:15 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 12:07:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <54749584.1080708@wzb.eu> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <3D1E1CA9-1F08-4EC0-891C-4C39E3953A0D@difference.com.au> <54747D86.4020906@itforchange.net> <54749584.1080708@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20141126120715.76385108@quill> On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 18:43:16 +0400 Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Now I am confused! Mawaki represents the caucus in the CSCG. As a > member of that group he should act on our behalf or shouldn't he? And > even if Mawaki interprets his role and responsibilities in ways > different from you, what law is it exactly that he violates? Hi Jeanette The legal instrument governing IGC's decision-making processes is the IGC Charter. (Whether that can be enforced in a court of law is a different question. My understanding of Swiss law is that at the time when someone in Switzerland was a co-coordinator, it would have been possible to sue in a Swiss court to legally enforce the IGC Charter if the appeal process as defined in the IGC Charter for some reason wasn't available. I have no opinion about whether something something analogous might apply today.) In any case, while I'm pretty sure that no-one has any intention to sue over this, according to the IGC Charter, the following applies: If four members of the IGC believe the decision making process to not have been in accordance to the IGC Charter, they can appeal the decision. (Substantively I'm keeping my opinions on whether this process was legitimate to myself, as due to my role in JNC I would consider it inappropriate to engage within another CSCG member's decision making process in any way that would go beyond communicating and explaining JNC's positions.) Greetings, Norbert > > Am 25.11.14 17:00, schrieb parminder: > > Mawaki > > > > I am sure that you know that there is a method listed in the IGC > > charter to take collective decisions, and the method you are > > following is nowhere close to that.. > > > > In the circumstances, any correspondence you will make on IGC;s > > behalf as representing an IGC decision on this issue will be > > illegal. > > > > parminder > > > > PS: Apart from the fact that you are simply not authorised to make a > > decision on IGC's behalf, especially on such a contested matter as > > the implicated one, the various 'considerations' and 'notings' that > > you base your 'decision' on our either faulty or heavily contested, > > and you surely know that. > > > > Interestingly, you have spoken of the need to take forward to > > evolve and improve some sections of the Sao Paolo NM declaration, > > whereas a lot of civil society supporters of the new NMI as well > > its promoters inside WEF are insisting that the /*new NMI is not at > > all a normative venue but is bacially a platform for project based > > cooperation/*. Now, with such a faulty, or atleast contested, > > interpretation of the central purpose of the new NMI, how can you > > reach a decision on the IGC's behalf. > > > > This is just one of the faulty/ contested considerations that you > > have relied on, and there are many others that I can refer to. > > > > In the circumstances, please withdraw your ' decision'. Also for > > Deirdre's comments. Please let us know what you think of the > > legality of this 'decision'. > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday 25 November 2014 02:56 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > >> Dear All, > >> > >> I have listened to your views, to your fears and concerns as well > >> as to your hopes and support. This one is really difficult a > >> decision, probably the most difficult IGC decision I will have to > >> be involved in before the expiration of my term. > >> > >> Taking into consideration all the responses, comments, > >> explanations, positions and advice received on the IGC list in > >> response to this call, whether under this email thread or in a > >> different one since this call has been posted; > >> > >> Noting that Deirdre, my co-coordinatorship mate, has also already > >> expressed herself on this question; > >> > >> Observing that most of the concerns and the strongest ones > >> expressed here relate more (albeit not exclusively) to the > >> presence or participation of the WEF as such in the NMI than to > >> anything else; > >> > >> Considering that the NMI is a different undertaking from the WEF; > >> > >> Noting that the modus operandi of WEF may in itself be > >> diametrically opposed to, or at least is different from, the open, > >> transparent, bottom-up and consensus-seeking mode of operation > >> that we value as civil society in the IG field and which ICG,br > >> and IGC agree to promote and uphold in carrying forward the legacy > >> of NETmundial2014; > >> > >> Noting that in that regard the goals pursued by WEF in global > >> governance may be at odds with the goals of civil society, and as a > >> result there are most likely many questions on which civil society > >> and WEF may not agree on in one increasingly prominent area of > >> global governance to date (i.e, the internet governance area); > >> > >> Noting that the IG space is one that is meant to be open to all > >> stakeholders who are willing to contribute, as long as they accept > >> to live up to that openness and the other basic rules of operation > >> mentioned above from the CS standpoint, without the pre-requisite > >> of agreeing with each others on their worldview or even on a set > >> of core substantive issues; > >> > >> Noting that currently, the NMI is the beginning of something that > >> still needs to be shaped and can be shaped as have shown so far the > >> amendments that have been made by its proponents to their original > >> plans after CS feedback and criticism; > >> > >> Understanding that those amendments may have been made in order to > >> lure CS into NMI and that they may not guarantee any type of > >> outcome on the long run unless CS remains vigilant and keeps > >> fighting for the outcomes it wishes for or supports; > >> > >> Noting that the outcome of NETmundial2014 is not perfect and thus > >> _at least_ some sections of CS do not consider it as final in the > >> sense that some of its provisions may still need to evolve and be > >> improved, but that would be better achieved through the continuous > >> collaborative work of the various stakeholders rather than by fiat > >> from one stakeholder (group); > >> > >> Considering that if CS resolves to join NMI, it is not lending > >> legitimacy to WEF in any way but to NMI which has already gained > >> some legitimacy by the CGI.br being one of its co-founders and > >> will further gain legitimacy by having a delegate of the IGF-MAG > >> join the NMI's Coordination Council (assuming its current design > >> is implemented)*; > >> > >> I would recommend that IGC engages with the NMI process by > >> participating in the vetting and selection by CSCG of civil society > >> nominees to the NMI Coordination Council. > >> On the IGC behalf, I will further advise and support the idea that > >> the CSCG assorts the CS participation with a number of conditions > >> that will be meant to make sure the continuous participation of > >> the CS and its appointees is subject to being accountable to their > >> constituents. > >> > >> CSCG will be informed immediately of this outcome, that is, the > >> acceptance of IGC to go forward with NMI. > >> > >> Thank you for your participation in this consultation. > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Mawaki > >> > >> > >> (*) Excerpt from the https://www.netmundial.org/ > >> The Coordination Council will have a total of *25 individual > >> members*: 20 distributed across four sectors and five geographies, > >> and additional seats (one each) for the organizational founders > >> CGI.br and ICANN; one for the World Economic Forum in its role of > >> supporter of the Initiative; as well as one seat each for the IGF > >> Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) and the technical community > >> (I* group). > >> > >> > >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ginger at paque.net Wed Nov 26 07:10:08 2014 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 06:10:08 -0600 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Fwd=3A_=5BWebinar=5D_Outcomes_of_the_ITU?= =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=99s_Plenipotentiary_Conference?= Message-ID: (Apologies for cross-posting, but I like Sam's reporting style, and wanted to make sure you see this)... Ginger If you missed the important ITU's Plenipotentiary meeting (#Plenipot14), join us for Friday's November IG webinar, for a round-up of the main outcomes of the conference. It will be led by IG expert Samantha Dickinson, who followed the developments closely from Busan. The webinar is an opportunity to keep up-to-date with one of the major IG events in 2014. Follow the link to register below or at http://www.diplomacy.edu/calendar/webinar-outcomes-itu-plenipot14. Is this email not displaying correctly? View this email in your browser *November IG webinar:* *Outcomes of the ITU's Plenipotentiary Conference* Dear friends, We would like to invite you to our next IG webinar, on *Friday 28th November, at 11:00 UTC*, on the Outcomes of the ITU's Plenipotentiary Conference 2014. The three-week ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 2014 , which came to a conclusion earlier this month in Busan, reviewed the ITU’s Internet-related resolutions, including those on Internet protocol-based networks, the ITU’s role with regard to Internet-related public policy issues and management of Internet resources, the role of administrations of Member States in the management of internationalised domain names, and facilitation of the transition to IPv6. The conference also decided the ITU’s work plan for the next four years, and elected its new leadership. Diplo’s November IG webinar, dedicated to the outcomes of conference, will be presented by IG expert *Samantha Dickinson*, who followed closely the developments and negotiations on the ground in Busan. The webinar will discuss: - What are the main updates to the top four Internet-related resolutions? - This was the first major ITU conference since the Snowden revelations – what impact did the revelations have on the negotiations and final versions of the new resolutions? - Were there any significant changes to the positions of Member States with regard to multistakeholder or intergovernmental models for IG? - What were the tensions and nuances during the negotiations? *Please register here to join us on Friday, 28th November at 11:00 UTC; attendance is free, registration is required.* E-see you on Friday! Diplo's IG webinars team Like us on FaceBook Follow us on Twitter Our website Our network *Copyright © 2014 DiploFoundation, All rights reserved.* ------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 26 09:07:37 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 09:07:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_REMOTE_PARTICIPATION=3A_=23ArabIGF_i?= =?UTF-8?Q?n_Beirut_=E2=80=93_Nov_26-27?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Apologies to anyone who had trouble accessing the webex via pdf.. Here is an html version: http://isoc-ny.org/misc/ArabIGF2014%20Remote%20Participation_25Nov2014.html On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:11 AM, Joly MacFie wrote: > Just started > > joly posted: "Today and tomorrow November 26 - 27 2014 the third annual > meeting of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF-III) is taking place in > Beirut, Lebanon. Arab IGF tackles a wide spectrum of issues of regulatory > and policy nature within the sphere of Internet" > > [image: Arab IGF 2014]Today and tomorrow *November 26 - 27 2014* the > third annual meeting of the* Arab Internet Governance Forum > (AIGF-III) *is taking place in Beirut, > Lebanon. Arab IGF tackles a wide spectrum of issues of regulatory and > policy nature within the sphere of Internet industry and Internet use, > including: accelerating broadband penetration; development of its > applications; promoting local content; user rights; policies for critical > Internet resources; cybersecurity; protecting privacy; youth and the > Internet; and innovation enabling Internet policies. Speakers include: Raul > Echeberría, Vice President, Internet Society, and Richard Hill. Remote > participation is possible via webex. Beirut is UTC+2 = 7 hours ahead of NYC. > > > > > > > *What: Arab Internet Governance Forum > (AIGF-III) Where: Beirut, Lebanon When: Wednesday 26 November 2014 - > Thursday 27 November 2014 Agenda: > http://beta.igfarab.org/UploadedFiles/Files/Program.pdf > Remote > participation: > http://www.escwa.un.org/information/meetings/editor/Download.asp?table_name=events_eventDetails&field_name=id&FileID=13628 > > Twitter: #ArabIGF > * > > > Comment See all comments > > > > > > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Nov 26 11:14:21 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 21:44:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] CSCG - participation in selection of civil society representatives for NMI Coordination Council In-Reply-To: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> Message-ID: <5475FC5D.8050700@itforchange.net> It is a pity that major civil society groups finally decided to go with the WEF's NMI, albeit repackaged to look somewhat better that the WEF itself. This could be aparadigm shift and a historic dayfor the global governance of the Internet, of course in a bad way. The existing centres of Internet power, almost all US based ones, have achieved a significant objective. Really a champagne-uncorking day for them. They have managed to shift the attention from the US centredness of the global Internet, which was increasingly becoming too uncomfortable and unsustainable, towards relatively greater globality of the Internet's power establishment. (In the short term, this will help them address WSIS plus 10 'problems', but can have significant long terms gains as well.) Being able to win global popular support was extremely unlikely with the kind of stuff that these Internet powers do, which is increasingly common knowledge. Such democratic seekings are passe, really old-fashioned. And so they went for the easier catch - the global elite. It is an elite which often already identifies with a certain US centric global cosmopolitan-ism (grudging accepting the the US centred-ness of this global cultural phenomenon and hoping to cosmopolitan-ise it). To the extent even if some of them do not so accept - like some kinds of political and economic elites outside the US - it is ready to make power-for-power big deals and adjustments. That is what the World Economic Forum is, and everyone know this fact. But this is something to which a big part of civil society involved in the IG space today professed a complete blindness. In reaching the World Economic Forum, and somewhat centring itself on it, the global IG establishment has provided clearer contours to what in any case has been one of the most significant elements of the global politics around the Internet. This is the uneasy political relationship between the globally mobile (now even more mobile, virtually) or at least aspirational upper classes and the more locally rooted, and yes, well, rather constrained, rest-of-the-world, even if often domiciled in the same territory and polity. Much of global Internet politics, captured in the phenomenon of multistakeholderism, represents a combination of political, economic and social elites of the world, and across the world (with its continuous demeaning of the nation state while taking all the benefit of its institutions). This political combination now has a clear home at the WEF, and in it, a clear symbol as well. It is spine-chilling to think what kind of deals and compromises will be worked out among the most powerful, now with the more acceptable tag of a certain globalness attached to them. This globalness achieved by bringing together the elite of the world may be worse than the status quo, which fact worries me the most. In the status quo there was at least the stark legitimacy hole, and certain possibilities of joining of forces among those outside the global Internet power configuration, the rich and the poor alike, to put it somewhat simplistically. The WEF brings to the global IG establishment not only a new legitimacy of a certain globalness, but also divides those who would otherwise be together in their opposition to the US hegemony. Now the top businesses of developing countries can feel more equal with those from the US at WEF panels and working groups, and the leaders of the more powerful developing countries can be variously flattered and offered selective sops. That celebrated meeting of fat cats in the snow at Davos. A perfect photo op. Just the poor, the disposed and the marginalised are missing. They are missing from the forums which would now entrech, as well as develop new, means for ever greater digital control over them. The structures of controls will see minor shifts and adjustments on the top, with concessions thrown around within the narrow elite circles, and those left out will all be worse for these adjustment and changes. This is how the new global paradigm is a great regression from even the status quo. The first country to welcome the WEF's NMI was the US, and also the first to offer itself for a seat in the NMI Council. The second one seeking a seat is Russia. So, you get the picture! (Lets not talk about the Brazilians. They really do not seem to know what they are doing, God forgive them.) The powerful have decided what they plan to do, or not do, about the global governance of the Internet. Now the powerless and the exploited need to figure what they should do; what is their response to this new global Internet power configuration. But for that they first need an organised civil society to direct and lead them, because most of the existing one in the IG space has betrayed them. It is a difficult situation. parminder On Wednesday 26 November 2014 03:25 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > Dear Civil Society members, > > After a substantial consultation with members across many different > constituencies, the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination > Group (CSCG) has decided that, in accordance with its procedures and > with the conditions in the letter below, it will engage in the process > of selection of self nominated civil society representatives for the > Co ordination Council of the Netmundial Initiative (NMI). > > In doing so, we acknowledge and respect that Just Net Coalition has > determined not to engage in this process, and that there are many > civil society people in other coalitions who would also prefer not to > engage at this time. > > For those who choose to engage; if you wish to be a candidate, you > must complete the form which can be found at > https://www.netmundial.org/coordination-council-nominations, together > with the associated documentation, by December 6. Please note that > CSCG will not be endorsing nominations but playing a selection role as > outlined in the letter below. > > Thank you everyone who participated in this consultation and freely > expressed their opinions. Below is a letter recently sent to the > organisers outlining CSCG’s position and involvement. > > LETTER TO NMI TRANSITIONAL COUNCIL > > Dear Virgilio, Richard and Fadi, > > As members of the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group > (CSCG), we write to express our appreciation for your openness in > working with us to negotiate the terms of civil society’s > participation in the NETmundial Initiative; in particular, by > accommodating our expectation, drawn from the NETmundial Principles, > that if we are to participate on the Coordination Council, we should > nominate our own representatives. > > Since our initial agreement on this principle, we have been consulting > with our constituents about whether civil society ought to avail > itself of this opportunity at all. We must say that this has been a > difficult question, at the end of which there remain some very > significant misgivings across a broad segment of civil society about > the merits of our prospective involvement. > > Among the underlying concerns of many are that the involvement of the > World Economic Forum in the initiative signals an attempt by economic > and political elites to secure a central role in Internet governance; > that the Initiative has been organised in a top-down manner that > privileges its three promoters above other stakeholders; and that > devoting time and resources to the Initiative may detract from other > processes such as the Internet Governance Forum. > > On the other hand, others recognise the opportunity that exists for > civil society to help shape the NETmundial Initiative into a mechanism > (but not the only mechanism) that can advance the NETmundial roadmap. > Despite significant shortcomings in the NETmundial Multistakeholder > Statement stemming from influence exerted by powerful actors towards > the end of the process, much of the document, including the roadmap, > does enjoy broad civil society support. > > OUR INVOLVEMENT AND PROCESS > > In the end we have decided to facilitate the involvement of those from > civil society who do wish to apply for membership of the Coordination > Council, while acknowledging others have decided as a matter of > principle that they do not wish to be involved—and indeed would rather > that civil society did not participate at all. We acknowledge and > respect that our colleagues from Just Net Coalition have taken that > position and will not be participating with us in this exercise. > > The process we have agreed to work with is > > 1. At the close of nominations (December 6), CSCG Nomcom will review > all nominations for civil society participation and evaluate each > candidate’s suitability. > > 2. CSCG Nomcom will recommend one candidate per geographic region, and > submits names to Transitional Council with reasons. > > 3. If necessary, NMI Transitional Council will convene a (virtual) > meeting with CSCG Nomcom to discuss any issues arising, with a view to > reaching a rough consensus agreement if there are any issues with our > nominations. If there is a strong dissenting voice from another area > of civil society they may also be invited to participate after discussion. > > CONDITIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS > > Although we will work with the NETmundial Initiative’s organising > partners to select willing civil society representatives from amongst > those who self-nominate through the Initiative’s nomination process, > we also outline five simple conditions that we believe representatives > are likely to affirm following their appointment to the Coordination > Council: > > 1. We would like the Co-ordination Council to discuss whether CGI.br, > WEF and ICANN should have permanent membership of the Coordination > Council and what that implies. Whilst it is acknowledged that the > above organisations are jointly funding the operational expenses of > the Initiative for its first year, this might not remain so. We are > not convinced that funding support is sufficient justification for > such a role, and we believe that the full Coordination Council itself > should approve any permanent seats and what that implies. > > 2. To the extent that a stated objective of the Coordination Council > is "promoting the distributed Internet governance model,” we want to > point out that the status quo in Internet governance does not > represent the fulfilment of this model. The NETmundial Initiative > should not be used to legitimise existing inequalities and > deficiencies of the present system and should not hold civil society > back from advocating necessary reforms. > > 3. While we acknowledge the progressive elements of the NETmundial > Multistakeholder Statement, it is not the final and definitive > statement of Internet governance principles; indeed the Statement > itself acknowledges that it is only a work in progress. So we do not > see the NETmundial roadmap as an immutable document. We look forward > to its refinement and/or augmentation and hope that NMI ensures a > bottom up collaborative process to undertake this work. > > 4. A key performance indicator for the NETmundial Initiative must be > the extent to which its activities strengthen and support the Internet > Governance Forum, which remains the most significant global hub for > general multi-stakeholder Internet governance policy discussions. If > the IGF develops the capacity to assume further activities that > currently might not fall within their capabilities, this should be > facilitated, not opposed. > > 5. We will wish to evaluate from time to time whether this engagement > is providing effective and worthwhile results for our constituencies. > > We trust that our participation in this Initiative can be accepted > with these conditions, and we look forward to working with you to > select a balanced, inclusive and capable slate of civil society > nominees to join the Coordination Council. > > Sincerely, > > *CSCG Nomcom for NMI Co ordination Council * > > ** > > *Participating member coalitions* > > Association for Progressive Communications, represented by Chat Garcia > Ramilo, Deputy Executive Director > > Best Bits, represented by Jeremy Malcolm, Steering Committee member > > Diplo Foundation, represented by Ginger (Virginia) Paque, Internet > Governance Programmes > > Internet Governance Caucus, represented by Dr Mawaki Chango, > Co-Coordinator > > The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) represented by Robin > Gross, NCSG Executive Committee > > Ian Peter, Independent Chair > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Wed Nov 26 12:25:35 2014 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 18:25:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] CSCG - participation in selection of civil society representatives for NMI Coordination Council In-Reply-To: <5475FC5D.8050700@itforchange.net> References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <5475FC5D.8050700@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder, I think Ian has managed to express in a very balanced and respectful manner the very diverse perspectives within civil society, including yours (and the JNC), by explicitly mentioning the reservations and the caution with which some people and CS groups accept to engage in the NMI exercise. I think he deserves more credit than what you express in response. My understanding of democracy is neither the domination of the majority, nor the veto of a minority. We see too often what this produces at national levels. In the present case, some actors are willing to give it a try after having, I think, carefully pondered the opinions you expressed. It is your full right to disagree but not your right to prevent them from exercising their willing choice or demean them by claiming they have "betrayed the powerless". Only time will tell whether they were wrong or not. As a general note, I still fail to see, after several years, whether you want to propose any other mechanism than traditional intergovernmental processes - limited to representatives from governments - as the proper architecture for the democratic Internet governance you desire. If you have other ideas, we are certainly all interested in innovative frameworks that would be different from what is attempted here with the NMI. If not, what place do you see in such purely governmental processes for civil society? None? Or just outside of the room? Tell me if I missed something here. More generally, I wonder what makes you have faith in the capacity of purely intergovernmental fora to achieve progress in the absence of sufficient agreement among all governments? In the past ten years, such fora have hardly produced anything more than copy and paste of various paragraphs of the WSIS documents (I know from experience, having contributed to several of CSTD drafting exercises, for instance). The most innovative efforts, albeit still imperfect, have been undertaken by non-UN organizations, such as the Council of Europe or OECD, but they do not have universal membership. We need solutions for key issues and we currently do not have the proper structures and processes to address them. The NETmundial Initiative is certainly not perfect, but it is at least an effort to keep the momentum produced by he Sao Paulo event and it does not pretend to have a monopoly. Nobody prevents anyone from initiating competing efforts. But doing nothing does not seem a viable or valuable option. Respectfully Bertrand "*Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes*", Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("*There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans*")BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLEInternet & Jurisdiction Project | Directoremail bdelachapelle at internetjurisdiction.netemail bdelachapelle at gmail.comtwitter @IJurisdiction | @bdelachapelle mobile +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 www.internetjurisdiction.net[image: A GLOBAL MULTI-STAKEHOLDER DIALOGUE PROCESS] On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 5:14 PM, parminder wrote: > > It is a pity that major civil society groups finally decided to go with > the WEF's NMI, albeit repackaged to look somewhat better that the WEF > itself. This could be a paradigm shift and a historic day for the global > governance of the Internet, of course in a bad way. > > The existing centres of Internet power, almost all US based ones, have > achieved a significant objective. Really a champagne-uncorking day for > them. They have managed to shift the attention from the US centredness of > the global Internet, which was increasingly becoming too uncomfortable > and unsustainable, towards relatively greater globality of the Internet's > power establishment. (In the short term, this will help them address WSIS > plus 10 'problems', but can have significant long terms gains as well.) > Being able to win global popular support was extremely unlikely with the > kind of stuff that these Internet powers do, which is increasingly common > knowledge. Such democratic seekings are passe, really old-fashioned. And so > they went for the easier catch - the global elite. It is an elite which > often already identifies with a certain US centric global cosmopolitan-ism > (grudging accepting the the US centred-ness of this global cultural > phenomenon and hoping to cosmopolitan-ise it). To the extent even if some > of them do not so accept - like some kinds of political and economic elites > outside the US - it is ready to make power-for-power big deals and > adjustments. That is what the World Economic Forum is, and everyone know > this fact. But this is something to which a big part of civil society > involved in the IG space today professed a complete blindness. > > In reaching the World Economic Forum, and somewhat centring itself on it, > the global IG establishment has provided clearer contours to what in any > case has been one of the most significant elements of the global politics > around the Internet. This is the uneasy political relationship between the > globally mobile (now even more mobile, virtually) or at least aspirational > upper classes and the more locally rooted, and yes, well, rather > constrained, rest-of-the-world, even if often domiciled in the same > territory and polity. Much of global Internet politics, captured in the > phenomenon of multistakeholderism, represents a combination of political, > economic and social elites of the world, and across the world (with its > continuous demeaning of the nation state while taking all the benefit of > its institutions). This political combination now has a clear home at the > WEF, and in it, a clear symbol as well. It is spine-chilling to think what > kind of deals and compromises will be worked out among the most powerful, > now with the more acceptable tag of a certain globalness attached to them. > > This globalness achieved by bringing together the elite of the world may > be worse than the status quo, which fact worries me the most. In the status > quo there was at least the stark legitimacy hole, and certain possibilities > of joining of forces among those outside the global Internet power > configuration, the rich and the poor alike, to put it somewhat > simplistically. The WEF brings to the global IG establishment not only a > new legitimacy of a certain globalness, but also divides those who would > otherwise be together in their opposition to the US hegemony. Now the top > businesses of developing countries can feel more equal with those from the > US at WEF panels and working groups, and the leaders of the more powerful > developing countries can be variously flattered and offered selective sops. > That celebrated meeting of fat cats in the snow at Davos. A perfect photo > op. Just the poor, the disposed and the marginalised are missing. They are > missing from the forums which would now entrech, as well as develop new, > means for ever greater digital control over them. The structures of > controls will see minor shifts and adjustments on the top, with concessions > thrown around within the narrow elite circles, and those left out will all > be worse for these adjustment and changes. This is how the new global > paradigm is a great regression from even the status quo. > > The first country to welcome the WEF's NMI was the US, and also the first > to offer itself for a seat in the NMI Council. The second one seeking a > seat is Russia. So, you get the picture! (Lets not talk about the > Brazilians. They really do not seem to know what they are doing, God > forgive them.) The powerful have decided what they plan to do, or not do, > about the global governance of the Internet. Now the powerless and the > exploited need to figure what they should do; what is their response to > this new global Internet power configuration. But for that they first need > an organised civil society to direct and lead them, because most of the > existing one in the IG space has betrayed them. It is a difficult > situation. > > parminder > > > On Wednesday 26 November 2014 03:25 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > Dear Civil Society members, > > > > After a substantial consultation with members across many different > constituencies, the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group > (CSCG) has decided that, in accordance with its procedures and with the > conditions in the letter below, it will engage in the process of selection > of self nominated civil society representatives for the Co ordination > Council of the Netmundial Initiative (NMI). > > > > In doing so, we acknowledge and respect that Just Net Coalition has > determined not to engage in this process, and that there are many civil > society people in other coalitions who would also prefer not to engage at > this time. > > > > For those who choose to engage; if you wish to be a candidate, you must > complete the form which can be found at > https://www.netmundial.org/coordination-council-nominations, together > with the associated documentation, by December 6. Please note that CSCG > will not be endorsing nominations but playing a selection role as outlined > in the letter below. > > > > Thank you everyone who participated in this consultation and freely > expressed their opinions. Below is a letter recently sent to the organisers > outlining CSCG’s position and involvement. > > > > LETTER TO NMI TRANSITIONAL COUNCIL > > > > Dear Virgilio, Richard and Fadi, > > > > As members of the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group > (CSCG), we write to express our appreciation for your openness in working > with us to negotiate the terms of civil society’s participation in the > NETmundial Initiative; in particular, by accommodating our expectation, > drawn from the NETmundial Principles, that if we are to participate on the > Coordination Council, we should nominate our own representatives. > > > > Since our initial agreement on this principle, we have been consulting > with our constituents about whether civil society ought to avail itself of > this opportunity at all. We must say that this has been a difficult > question, at the end of which there remain some very significant misgivings > across a broad segment of civil society about the merits of our prospective > involvement. > > > > Among the underlying concerns of many are that the involvement of the > World Economic Forum in the initiative signals an attempt by economic and > political elites to secure a central role in Internet governance; that the > Initiative has been organised in a top-down manner that privileges its > three promoters above other stakeholders; and that devoting time and > resources to the Initiative may detract from other processes such as the > Internet Governance Forum. > > > > On the other hand, others recognise the opportunity that exists for civil > society to help shape the NETmundial Initiative into a mechanism (but not > the only mechanism) that can advance the NETmundial roadmap. Despite > significant shortcomings in the NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement > stemming from influence exerted by powerful actors towards the end of the > process, much of the document, including the roadmap, does enjoy broad > civil society support. > > > > OUR INVOLVEMENT AND PROCESS > > > > In the end we have decided to facilitate the involvement of those from > civil society who do wish to apply for membership of the Coordination > Council, while acknowledging others have decided as a matter of principle > that they do not wish to be involved—and indeed would rather that civil > society did not participate at all. We acknowledge and respect that our > colleagues from Just Net Coalition have taken that position and will not be > participating with us in this exercise. > > > > The process we have agreed to work with is > > > > 1. At the close of nominations (December 6), CSCG Nomcom will review all > nominations for civil society participation and evaluate each candidate’s > suitability. > > 2. CSCG Nomcom will recommend one candidate per geographic region, and > submits names to Transitional Council with reasons. > > 3. If necessary, NMI Transitional Council will convene a (virtual) meeting > with CSCG Nomcom to discuss any issues arising, with a view to reaching a > rough consensus agreement if there are any issues with our nominations. If > there is a strong dissenting voice from another area of civil society they > may also be invited to participate after discussion. > > > > CONDITIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS > > > > Although we will work with the NETmundial Initiative’s organising partners > to select willing civil society representatives from amongst those who > self-nominate through the Initiative’s nomination process, we also outline > five simple conditions that we believe representatives are likely to affirm > following their appointment to the Coordination Council: > > > > 1. We would like the Co-ordination Council to discuss whether CGI.br, WEF > and ICANN should have permanent membership of the Coordination Council and > what that implies. Whilst it is acknowledged that the above organisations > are jointly funding the operational expenses of the Initiative for its > first year, this might not remain so. We are not convinced that funding > support is sufficient justification for such a role, and we believe that > the full Coordination Council itself should approve any permanent seats and > what that implies. > > > > 2. To the extent that a stated objective of the Coordination Council is > "promoting the distributed Internet governance model,” we want to point out > that the status quo in Internet governance does not represent the > fulfilment of this model. The NETmundial Initiative should not be used to > legitimise existing inequalities and deficiencies of the present system and > should not hold civil society back from advocating necessary reforms. > > > > 3. While we acknowledge the progressive elements of the NETmundial > Multistakeholder Statement, it is not the final and definitive statement of > Internet governance principles; indeed the Statement itself acknowledges > that it is only a work in progress. So we do not see the NETmundial roadmap > as an immutable document. We look forward to its refinement and/or > augmentation and hope that NMI ensures a bottom up collaborative process to > undertake this work. > > > > 4. A key performance indicator for the NETmundial Initiative must be the > extent to which its activities strengthen and support the Internet > Governance Forum, which remains the most significant global hub for general > multi-stakeholder Internet governance policy discussions. If the IGF > develops the capacity to assume further activities that currently might not > fall within their capabilities, this should be facilitated, not opposed. > > > > 5. We will wish to evaluate from time to time whether this engagement is > providing effective and worthwhile results for our constituencies. > > > > We trust that our participation in this Initiative can be accepted with > these conditions, and we look forward to working with you to select a > balanced, inclusive and capable slate of civil society nominees to join the > Coordination Council. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > *CSCG Nomcom for NMI Co ordination Council * > > > > *Participating member coalitions* > > > > Association for Progressive Communications, represented by Chat Garcia > Ramilo, Deputy Executive Director > > > > Best Bits, represented by Jeremy Malcolm, Steering Committee member > > > > Diplo Foundation, represented by Ginger (Virginia) Paque, Internet > Governance Programmes > > > > Internet Governance Caucus, represented by Dr Mawaki Chango, Co-Coordinator > > > > The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) represented by Robin Gross, > NCSG Executive Committee > > > > Ian Peter, Independent Chair > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nnenna75 at gmail.com Wed Nov 26 12:52:57 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 17:52:57 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] CSCG - participation in selection of civil society representatives for NMI Coordination Council In-Reply-To: References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <5475FC5D.8050700@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Very many thanks, Bertrand What I was confused about is the idea that IGC and BB are now institutions that "want to join" NMI. I have been under the impression that these are Civil Society platforms for action. My stand has been clear, if there are people who are willing to engage in a certain course (whatever their reasons are) then the platforms should facilitate that. One does not necessarily need to agree all the time with what others are doing. People should be free to engage People should be free to disengage People should be free not to engage I dont think that there will ever be a time when one person (or a group of persons for that matter) will be able to fully represent all the aspirations of the global civil society. Nnenna On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle < bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Parminder, > > I think Ian has managed to express in a very balanced and respectful > manner the very diverse perspectives within civil society, including yours > (and the JNC), by explicitly mentioning the reservations and the caution > with which some people and CS groups accept to engage in the NMI exercise. > I think he deserves more credit than what you express in response. > > My understanding of democracy is neither the domination of the majority, > nor the veto of a minority. We see too often what this produces at national > levels. In the present case, some actors are willing to give it a try after > having, I think, carefully pondered the opinions you expressed. It is your > full right to disagree but not your right to prevent them from exercising > their willing choice or demean them by claiming they have "betrayed the > powerless". Only time will tell whether they were wrong or not. > > As a general note, I still fail to see, after several years, whether you > want to propose any other mechanism than traditional intergovernmental > processes - limited to representatives from governments - as the proper > architecture for the democratic Internet governance you desire. If you have > other ideas, we are certainly all interested in innovative frameworks that > would be different from what is attempted here with the NMI. If not, what > place do you see in such purely governmental processes for civil society? > None? Or just outside of the room? Tell me if I missed something here. > > More generally, I wonder what makes you have faith in the capacity of > purely intergovernmental fora to achieve progress in the absence of > sufficient agreement among all governments? In the past ten years, such > fora have hardly produced anything more than copy and paste of various > paragraphs of the WSIS documents (I know from experience, having > contributed to several of CSTD drafting exercises, for instance). > > The most innovative efforts, albeit still imperfect, have been undertaken > by non-UN organizations, such as the Council of Europe or OECD, but they do > not have universal membership. > > We need solutions for key issues and we currently do not have the proper > structures and processes to address them. The NETmundial Initiative is > certainly not perfect, but it is at least an effort to keep the momentum > produced by he Sao Paulo event and it does not pretend to have a monopoly. > Nobody prevents anyone from initiating competing efforts. But doing nothing > does not seem a viable or valuable option. > > Respectfully > > Bertrand > > > > > > "*Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes*", Antoine de > Saint Exupéry > ("*There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans*")BERTRAND > DE LA CHAPELLEInternet & Jurisdiction Project | Directoremail > bdelachapelle at internetjurisdiction.netemail bdelachapelle at gmail.com > twitter @IJurisdiction | > @bdelachapelle mobile +33 (0)6 11 88 > 33 32www.internetjurisdiction.net[image: A GLOBAL MULTI-STAKEHOLDER > DIALOGUE PROCESS] > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 5:14 PM, parminder > wrote: > >> >> It is a pity that major civil society groups finally decided to go with >> the WEF's NMI, albeit repackaged to look somewhat better that the WEF >> itself. This could be a paradigm shift and a historic day for the global >> governance of the Internet, of course in a bad way. >> >> The existing centres of Internet power, almost all US based ones, have >> achieved a significant objective. Really a champagne-uncorking day for >> them. They have managed to shift the attention from the US centredness >> of the global Internet, which was increasingly becoming too >> uncomfortable and unsustainable, towards relatively greater globality of >> the Internet's power establishment. (In the short term, this will help them >> address WSIS plus 10 'problems', but can have significant long terms gains >> as well.) Being able to win global popular support was extremely unlikely >> with the kind of stuff that these Internet powers do, which is increasingly >> common knowledge. Such democratic seekings are passe, really old-fashioned. >> And so they went for the easier catch - the global elite. It is an elite >> which often already identifies with a certain US centric global >> cosmopolitan-ism (grudging accepting the the US centred-ness of this global >> cultural phenomenon and hoping to cosmopolitan-ise it). To the extent even >> if some of them do not so accept - like some kinds of political and >> economic elites outside the US - it is ready to make power-for-power big >> deals and adjustments. That is what the World Economic Forum is, and >> everyone know this fact. But this is something to which a big part of civil >> society involved in the IG space today professed a complete blindness. >> >> In reaching the World Economic Forum, and somewhat centring itself on it, >> the global IG establishment has provided clearer contours to what in any >> case has been one of the most significant elements of the global politics >> around the Internet. This is the uneasy political relationship between the >> globally mobile (now even more mobile, virtually) or at least aspirational >> upper classes and the more locally rooted, and yes, well, rather >> constrained, rest-of-the-world, even if often domiciled in the same >> territory and polity. Much of global Internet politics, captured in the >> phenomenon of multistakeholderism, represents a combination of political, >> economic and social elites of the world, and across the world (with its >> continuous demeaning of the nation state while taking all the benefit of >> its institutions). This political combination now has a clear home at the >> WEF, and in it, a clear symbol as well. It is spine-chilling to think what >> kind of deals and compromises will be worked out among the most powerful, >> now with the more acceptable tag of a certain globalness attached to them. >> >> This globalness achieved by bringing together the elite of the world may >> be worse than the status quo, which fact worries me the most. In the status >> quo there was at least the stark legitimacy hole, and certain possibilities >> of joining of forces among those outside the global Internet power >> configuration, the rich and the poor alike, to put it somewhat >> simplistically. The WEF brings to the global IG establishment not only a >> new legitimacy of a certain globalness, but also divides those who would >> otherwise be together in their opposition to the US hegemony. Now the top >> businesses of developing countries can feel more equal with those from the >> US at WEF panels and working groups, and the leaders of the more powerful >> developing countries can be variously flattered and offered selective sops. >> That celebrated meeting of fat cats in the snow at Davos. A perfect photo >> op. Just the poor, the disposed and the marginalised are missing. They are >> missing from the forums which would now entrech, as well as develop new, >> means for ever greater digital control over them. The structures of >> controls will see minor shifts and adjustments on the top, with concessions >> thrown around within the narrow elite circles, and those left out will all >> be worse for these adjustment and changes. This is how the new global >> paradigm is a great regression from even the status quo. >> >> The first country to welcome the WEF's NMI was the US, and also the first >> to offer itself for a seat in the NMI Council. The second one seeking a >> seat is Russia. So, you get the picture! (Lets not talk about the >> Brazilians. They really do not seem to know what they are doing, God >> forgive them.) The powerful have decided what they plan to do, or not do, >> about the global governance of the Internet. Now the powerless and the >> exploited need to figure what they should do; what is their response to >> this new global Internet power configuration. But for that they first need >> an organised civil society to direct and lead them, because most of the >> existing one in the IG space has betrayed them. It is a difficult >> situation. >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Wednesday 26 November 2014 03:25 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear Civil Society members, >> >> >> >> After a substantial consultation with members across many different >> constituencies, the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group >> (CSCG) has decided that, in accordance with its procedures and with the >> conditions in the letter below, it will engage in the process of selection >> of self nominated civil society representatives for the Co ordination >> Council of the Netmundial Initiative (NMI). >> >> >> >> In doing so, we acknowledge and respect that Just Net Coalition has >> determined not to engage in this process, and that there are many civil >> society people in other coalitions who would also prefer not to engage at >> this time. >> >> >> >> For those who choose to engage; if you wish to be a candidate, you must >> complete the form which can be found at >> https://www.netmundial.org/coordination-council-nominations, together >> with the associated documentation, by December 6. Please note that CSCG >> will not be endorsing nominations but playing a selection role as outlined >> in the letter below. >> >> >> >> Thank you everyone who participated in this consultation and freely >> expressed their opinions. Below is a letter recently sent to the organisers >> outlining CSCG’s position and involvement. >> >> >> >> LETTER TO NMI TRANSITIONAL COUNCIL >> >> >> >> Dear Virgilio, Richard and Fadi, >> >> >> >> As members of the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group >> (CSCG), we write to express our appreciation for your openness in working >> with us to negotiate the terms of civil society’s participation in the >> NETmundial Initiative; in particular, by accommodating our expectation, >> drawn from the NETmundial Principles, that if we are to participate on the >> Coordination Council, we should nominate our own representatives. >> >> >> >> Since our initial agreement on this principle, we have been consulting >> with our constituents about whether civil society ought to avail itself of >> this opportunity at all. We must say that this has been a difficult >> question, at the end of which there remain some very significant misgivings >> across a broad segment of civil society about the merits of our prospective >> involvement. >> >> >> >> Among the underlying concerns of many are that the involvement of the >> World Economic Forum in the initiative signals an attempt by economic and >> political elites to secure a central role in Internet governance; that the >> Initiative has been organised in a top-down manner that privileges its >> three promoters above other stakeholders; and that devoting time and >> resources to the Initiative may detract from other processes such as the >> Internet Governance Forum. >> >> >> >> On the other hand, others recognise the opportunity that exists for civil >> society to help shape the NETmundial Initiative into a mechanism (but not >> the only mechanism) that can advance the NETmundial roadmap. Despite >> significant shortcomings in the NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement >> stemming from influence exerted by powerful actors towards the end of the >> process, much of the document, including the roadmap, does enjoy broad >> civil society support. >> >> >> >> OUR INVOLVEMENT AND PROCESS >> >> >> >> In the end we have decided to facilitate the involvement of those from >> civil society who do wish to apply for membership of the Coordination >> Council, while acknowledging others have decided as a matter of principle >> that they do not wish to be involved—and indeed would rather that civil >> society did not participate at all. We acknowledge and respect that our >> colleagues from Just Net Coalition have taken that position and will not be >> participating with us in this exercise. >> >> >> >> The process we have agreed to work with is >> >> >> >> 1. At the close of nominations (December 6), CSCG Nomcom will review all >> nominations for civil society participation and evaluate each candidate’s >> suitability. >> >> 2. CSCG Nomcom will recommend one candidate per geographic region, and >> submits names to Transitional Council with reasons. >> >> 3. If necessary, NMI Transitional Council will convene a (virtual) >> meeting with CSCG Nomcom to discuss any issues arising, with a view to >> reaching a rough consensus agreement if there are any issues with our >> nominations. If there is a strong dissenting voice from another area of >> civil society they may also be invited to participate after discussion. >> >> >> >> CONDITIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS >> >> >> >> Although we will work with the NETmundial Initiative’s organising >> partners to select willing civil society representatives from amongst those >> who self-nominate through the Initiative’s nomination process, we also >> outline five simple conditions that we believe representatives are likely >> to affirm following their appointment to the Coordination Council: >> >> >> >> 1. We would like the Co-ordination Council to discuss whether CGI.br, WEF >> and ICANN should have permanent membership of the Coordination Council and >> what that implies. Whilst it is acknowledged that the above organisations >> are jointly funding the operational expenses of the Initiative for its >> first year, this might not remain so. We are not convinced that funding >> support is sufficient justification for such a role, and we believe that >> the full Coordination Council itself should approve any permanent seats and >> what that implies. >> >> >> >> 2. To the extent that a stated objective of the Coordination Council is >> "promoting the distributed Internet governance model,” we want to point out >> that the status quo in Internet governance does not represent the >> fulfilment of this model. The NETmundial Initiative should not be used to >> legitimise existing inequalities and deficiencies of the present system and >> should not hold civil society back from advocating necessary reforms. >> >> >> >> 3. While we acknowledge the progressive elements of the NETmundial >> Multistakeholder Statement, it is not the final and definitive statement of >> Internet governance principles; indeed the Statement itself acknowledges >> that it is only a work in progress. So we do not see the NETmundial roadmap >> as an immutable document. We look forward to its refinement and/or >> augmentation and hope that NMI ensures a bottom up collaborative process to >> undertake this work. >> >> >> >> 4. A key performance indicator for the NETmundial Initiative must be the >> extent to which its activities strengthen and support the Internet >> Governance Forum, which remains the most significant global hub for general >> multi-stakeholder Internet governance policy discussions. If the IGF >> develops the capacity to assume further activities that currently might not >> fall within their capabilities, this should be facilitated, not opposed. >> >> >> >> 5. We will wish to evaluate from time to time whether this engagement is >> providing effective and worthwhile results for our constituencies. >> >> >> >> We trust that our participation in this Initiative can be accepted with >> these conditions, and we look forward to working with you to select a >> balanced, inclusive and capable slate of civil society nominees to join the >> Coordination Council. >> >> >> >> Sincerely, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *CSCG Nomcom for NMI Co ordination Council * >> >> >> >> *Participating member coalitions* >> >> >> >> Association for Progressive Communications, represented by Chat Garcia >> Ramilo, Deputy Executive Director >> >> >> >> Best Bits, represented by Jeremy Malcolm, Steering Committee member >> >> >> >> Diplo Foundation, represented by Ginger (Virginia) Paque, Internet >> Governance Programmes >> >> >> >> Internet Governance Caucus, represented by Dr Mawaki Chango, >> Co-Coordinator >> >> >> >> The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) represented by Robin Gross, >> NCSG Executive Committee >> >> >> >> Ian Peter, Independent Chair >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr Wed Nov 26 13:32:49 2014 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 18:32:49 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] CSCG - participation in selection of civil society representatives for NMI Coordination Council In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1417026769.49690.YahooMailIosMobile@web28701.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 26 15:49:24 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 12:49:24 -0800 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] CSCG - participation in selection of civil society representatives for NMI Coordination Council In-Reply-To: <54762985.2010101@apc.org> References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org> Message-ID: <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> Rather than focusing on a specific set of processes (that of the CSCG) or the actions of an individual within that process, which I have no doubt were conducted with the highest degrees of probity and judiciousness, I think the follow up-discussion to the taking of a position by certain segments of IG CS should be to address the substance and the consequences of that commitment into which IG CS has apparently now entered. The issue being addressed is extremely simple and straightforward. Will Internet Governance associated Civil Society engage with and thus endorse/validate/legitimate the WEF/ICANN initiated process for responding to Internet Governance issues beyond the simply technical? That this discussion with the NMI has been primarily about ensuring the engagement and thus legitimation by CS of the NMI is quite clear from the last minute efforts to cloak the initiative in the presumed civil society legitimacy of CGI.br. That the particular details of that engagement/legitimation by CS are of little concern to the NMI is also quite evident from their eagerness to negotiate with the CSCG and apparently make whatever concessions were necessary in order to ensure that engagement. By engaging in the NMI process under whatever conditions and limitations, it should be quite clear that IG CS has endorsed and legitimated the NMI global (Internet) Governance process. The consequences of this action and this “commitment” are potentially extremely, even historically significant. (Suggesting that one can change one’s mind and withdraw half way through the process is simply a face-saving device.) The WEF in its various presentations and documents is quite transparent that they have every intention of introducing similar such processes throughout the entire range of global issues. They have also made it quite evident that these processes will actively include the global corporate sector and given the nature of the WEF one presumes that this will consist of (and from their perspective be restricted to) the global corporate and other elites. It is quite clear that IG CS has endorsed and legitimated the global elite’s corporatist agenda. Mike From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2014 11:27 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] CSCG - participation in selection of civil society representatives for NMI Coordination Council Thanks for this Ian, and to others on the CSCG. This was a difficult process and I feel you handled it with care and fairness. Anriette On 26/11/2014 11:55, Ian Peter wrote: Dear Civil Society members, After a substantial consultation with members across many different constituencies, the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) has decided that, in accordance with its procedures and with the conditions in the letter below, it will engage in the process of selection of self nominated civil society representatives for the Co ordination Council of the Netmundial Initiative (NMI). In doing so, we acknowledge and respect that Just Net Coalition has determined not to engage in this process, and that there are many civil society people in other coalitions who would also prefer not to engage at this time. For those who choose to engage; if you wish to be a candidate, you must complete the form which can be found at https://www.netmundial.org/coordination-council-nominations, together with the associated documentation, by December 6. Please note that CSCG will not be endorsing nominations but playing a selection role as outlined in the letter below. Thank you everyone who participated in this consultation and freely expressed their opinions. Below is a letter recently sent to the organisers outlining CSCG’s position and involvement. LETTER TO NMI TRANSITIONAL COUNCIL Dear Virgilio, Richard and Fadi, As members of the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG), we write to express our appreciation for your openness in working with us to negotiate the terms of civil society’s participation in the NETmundial Initiative; in particular, by accommodating our expectation, drawn from the NETmundial Principles, that if we are to participate on the Coordination Council, we should nominate our own representatives. Since our initial agreement on this principle, we have been consulting with our constituents about whether civil society ought to avail itself of this opportunity at all. We must say that this has been a difficult question, at the end of which there remain some very significant misgivings across a broad segment of civil society about the merits of our prospective involvement. Among the underlying concerns of many are that the involvement of the World Economic Forum in the initiative signals an attempt by economic and political elites to secure a central role in Internet governance; that the Initiative has been organised in a top-down manner that privileges its three promoters above other stakeholders; and that devoting time and resources to the Initiative may detract from other processes such as the Internet Governance Forum. On the other hand, others recognise the opportunity that exists for civil society to help shape the NETmundial Initiative into a mechanism (but not the only mechanism) that can advance the NETmundial roadmap. Despite significant shortcomings in the NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement stemming from influence exerted by powerful actors towards the end of the process, much of the document, including the roadmap, does enjoy broad civil society support. OUR INVOLVEMENT AND PROCESS In the end we have decided to facilitate the involvement of those from civil society who do wish to apply for membership of the Coordination Council, while acknowledging others have decided as a matter of principle that they do not wish to be involved—and indeed would rather that civil society did not participate at all. We acknowledge and respect that our colleagues from Just Net Coalition have taken that position and will not be participating with us in this exercise. The process we have agreed to work with is 1. At the close of nominations (December 6), CSCG Nomcom will review all nominations for civil society participation and evaluate each candidate’s suitability. 2. CSCG Nomcom will recommend one candidate per geographic region, and submits names to Transitional Council with reasons. 3. If necessary, NMI Transitional Council will convene a (virtual) meeting with CSCG Nomcom to discuss any issues arising, with a view to reaching a rough consensus agreement if there are any issues with our nominations. If there is a strong dissenting voice from another area of civil society they may also be invited to participate after discussion. CONDITIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS Although we will work with the NETmundial Initiative’s organising partners to select willing civil society representatives from amongst those who self-nominate through the Initiative’s nomination process, we also outline five simple conditions that we believe representatives are likely to affirm following their appointment to the Coordination Council: 1. We would like the Co-ordination Council to discuss whether CGI.br, WEF and ICANN should have permanent membership of the Coordination Council and what that implies. Whilst it is acknowledged that the above organisations are jointly funding the operational expenses of the Initiative for its first year, this might not remain so. We are not convinced that funding support is sufficient justification for such a role, and we believe that the full Coordination Council itself should approve any permanent seats and what that implies. 2. To the extent that a stated objective of the Coordination Council is "promoting the distributed Internet governance model,” we want to point out that the status quo in Internet governance does not represent the fulfilment of this model. The NETmundial Initiative should not be used to legitimise existing inequalities and deficiencies of the present system and should not hold civil society back from advocating necessary reforms. 3. While we acknowledge the progressive elements of the NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement, it is not the final and definitive statement of Internet governance principles; indeed the Statement itself acknowledges that it is only a work in progress. So we do not see the NETmundial roadmap as an immutable document. We look forward to its refinement and/or augmentation and hope that NMI ensures a bottom up collaborative process to undertake this work. 4. A key performance indicator for the NETmundial Initiative must be the extent to which its activities strengthen and support the Internet Governance Forum, which remains the most significant global hub for general multi-stakeholder Internet governance policy discussions. If the IGF develops the capacity to assume further activities that currently might not fall within their capabilities, this should be facilitated, not opposed. 5. We will wish to evaluate from time to time whether this engagement is providing effective and worthwhile results for our constituencies. We trust that our participation in this Initiative can be accepted with these conditions, and we look forward to working with you to select a balanced, inclusive and capable slate of civil society nominees to join the Coordination Council. Sincerely, CSCG Nomcom for NMI Co ordination Council Participating member coalitions Association for Progressive Communications, represented by Chat Garcia Ramilo, Deputy Executive Director Best Bits, represented by Jeremy Malcolm, Steering Committee member Diplo Foundation, represented by Ginger (Virginia) Paque, Internet Governance Programmes Internet Governance Caucus, represented by Dr Mawaki Chango, Co-Coordinator The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) represented by Robin Gross, NCSG Executive Committee Ian Peter, Independent Chair ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- ````````````````````````````````` anriette esterhuysen executive director association for progressive communications po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa anriette at apc.org www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Guru at ITforChange.net Wed Nov 26 23:09:02 2014 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (Guru) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 09:39:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] UNGA resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age In-Reply-To: <54766218.5090208@apc.org> References: <54766218.5090208@apc.org> Message-ID: <5476A3DE.2080607@ITforChange.net> see http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/united-nations-moves-to-strengthen-digital-privacy/article6637660.ece .....Mr. Braun warned that without proper checks, “we risk turning into Orwellian states” where citizens are being constantly monitored, he told the General Assembly’s committee on human rights. The resolution was adopted by consensus by the committee and now goes before the full Assembly in December. It followed weeks of tough negotiations with Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the U.S. — members of the so-called Five Eyes intelligence alliance — who sought to limit the resolution’s scope. The five countries are not among the 65 co-sponsors of the bill. Five Eyes = Big Brother! .... important to consider/remember this, as the Five Eyes are not amongst the countries routinely castigated by some, on these lists.... Regards Guru Gurumurthy Kasinathan Director, IT for Change In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum On Thursday 27 November 2014 04:58 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > Dear all, > > The UN General Assembly's 3rd committee passed a resolution on the right > to privacy in the digital age yesterday. The resolution will be > officially adopted by UNGA next month, but from here it's just > procedural. The resolution was adopted by consensus, at some cost. But > there is good text there, building on last year, and new language > encouraging the Human Rights Council to consider the creation of a > special procedure on the right to privacy. > > Here is APC's statement on the resolution: https://www.apc.org/en/node/20029 > > And statements from Brazil and Germany, which led this resolution > > Brazil: http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/4655554/brazil-l26-rev1.pdf > > Germany: > http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/4655572/germany-l26-rev1.pdf > > Kind regards, > Deborah > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) > Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org > > iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUdmIYAAoJEPeieloNaneNZDwQAMnaGdostjGahI1kyOuMRNoK > i02Qu0Ng9njl20gAcEql1LayfnUKSZ2JeRlOWPhr5khjWNanqjit53rGrbbV9gzV > ObT/L/DMZueN0jzgu9WrX/8tfe6zPev6JaoSrhmDKeNZSB5FPXPYFDoJ48b0EOPR > TXz1zdW3nu1F10csGhXhlxFCbAgsArzoFW6zgXiP/YMAeNe0l7ExGWkTaIOs9VY6 > ctF0cAMrep8WTUTfGNh1kUnCbDd8YLTcN3nOQsEhszB/7JSxM0yH8W5zhrHWiJzF > Ng7M+ZhgpAEWwmTsHX15AHu7evW4YUpYn7IqIlgjS0wmPZSyd0h/5nJYBGTPOBad > jBBu9HIhbBEAlvazNQfQ+89WVbRql8D41XYVYBBA0FucEcGBGLRfiXjI24xWmqqL > Bf1dlryzqYfQ+uYO4u1Xugg73klXVJH4pnl0xU6AC+uuSWVuqC8xjVEeobGKcmPo > TpNGb+74RswBpdpsx7J3jyKCqYwHieyROfW6pvxZhBM/KSGQRZh43jEZfxUvhMj6 > GZySI6VLcnHDxlDwY0yCXhX8mF+egZvIjrfAenI6bCrBavuud0mFzooefFut/IZY > 7ZCns65JakMHoifm8T+wZx3VccSj6Dn3BcggG3rU9cZ9h7Q5TZucFgHqHhr87BpC > R2XTsDc5e8O0YqLszn0A > =OHRJ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yesunhoo at gmail.com Wed Nov 26 23:48:56 2014 From: yesunhoo at gmail.com (Young-eum Lee) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:48:56 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] CSCG - participation in selection of civil society representatives for NMI Coordination Council In-Reply-To: References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <5475FC5D.8050700@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I am in full agreement with Nnenna. - kind regards, - Young-eum. Young-eum Lee Dept. of Media Arts & Sciences , Korea National Open University Dept. of Media Arts and Visual Contents , KNOU Grad School ICANN ccNSO Council member Chairman, 7th Daum Open User Committee On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 2:52 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > Very many thanks, Bertrand > > What I was confused about is the idea that IGC and BB are now institutions > that "want to join" NMI. I have been under the impression that these are > Civil Society platforms for action. > > My stand has been clear, if there are people who are willing to engage in > a certain course (whatever their reasons are) then the platforms should > facilitate that. One does not necessarily need to agree all the time with > what others are doing. > > People should be free to engage > People should be free to disengage > People should be free not to engage > > I dont think that there will ever be a time when one person (or a group of > persons for that matter) will be able to fully represent all the > aspirations of the global civil society. > > Nnenna > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle < > bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Parminder, >> >> I think Ian has managed to express in a very balanced and respectful >> manner the very diverse perspectives within civil society, including yours >> (and the JNC), by explicitly mentioning the reservations and the caution >> with which some people and CS groups accept to engage in the NMI exercise. >> I think he deserves more credit than what you express in response. >> >> My understanding of democracy is neither the domination of the majority, >> nor the veto of a minority. We see too often what this produces at national >> levels. In the present case, some actors are willing to give it a try after >> having, I think, carefully pondered the opinions you expressed. It is your >> full right to disagree but not your right to prevent them from exercising >> their willing choice or demean them by claiming they have "betrayed the >> powerless". Only time will tell whether they were wrong or not. >> >> As a general note, I still fail to see, after several years, whether you >> want to propose any other mechanism than traditional intergovernmental >> processes - limited to representatives from governments - as the proper >> architecture for the democratic Internet governance you desire. If you have >> other ideas, we are certainly all interested in innovative frameworks that >> would be different from what is attempted here with the NMI. If not, what >> place do you see in such purely governmental processes for civil society? >> None? Or just outside of the room? Tell me if I missed something here. >> >> More generally, I wonder what makes you have faith in the capacity of >> purely intergovernmental fora to achieve progress in the absence of >> sufficient agreement among all governments? In the past ten years, such >> fora have hardly produced anything more than copy and paste of various >> paragraphs of the WSIS documents (I know from experience, having >> contributed to several of CSTD drafting exercises, for instance). >> >> The most innovative efforts, albeit still imperfect, have been undertaken >> by non-UN organizations, such as the Council of Europe or OECD, but they do >> not have universal membership. >> >> We need solutions for key issues and we currently do not have the proper >> structures and processes to address them. The NETmundial Initiative is >> certainly not perfect, but it is at least an effort to keep the momentum >> produced by he Sao Paulo event and it does not pretend to have a monopoly. >> Nobody prevents anyone from initiating competing efforts. But doing nothing >> does not seem a viable or valuable option. >> >> Respectfully >> >> Bertrand >> >> >> >> >> >> "*Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes*", Antoine de >> Saint Exupéry >> ("*There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans*")BERTRAND >> DE LA CHAPELLEInternet & Jurisdiction Project | Directoremail >> bdelachapelle at internetjurisdiction.netemail bdelachapelle at gmail.com >> twitter @IJurisdiction | >> @bdelachapelle mobile +33 (0)6 11 88 >> 33 32www.internetjurisdiction.net[image: A GLOBAL MULTI-STAKEHOLDER >> DIALOGUE PROCESS] >> >> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 5:14 PM, parminder >> wrote: >> >>> >>> It is a pity that major civil society groups finally decided to go with >>> the WEF's NMI, albeit repackaged to look somewhat better that the WEF >>> itself. This could be a paradigm shift and a historic day for the >>> global governance of the Internet, of course in a bad way. >>> >>> The existing centres of Internet power, almost all US based ones, have >>> achieved a significant objective. Really a champagne-uncorking day for >>> them. They have managed to shift the attention from the US centredness >>> of the global Internet, which was increasingly becoming too >>> uncomfortable and unsustainable, towards relatively greater globality of >>> the Internet's power establishment. (In the short term, this will help them >>> address WSIS plus 10 'problems', but can have significant long terms gains >>> as well.) Being able to win global popular support was extremely unlikely >>> with the kind of stuff that these Internet powers do, which is increasingly >>> common knowledge. Such democratic seekings are passe, really old-fashioned. >>> And so they went for the easier catch - the global elite. It is an elite >>> which often already identifies with a certain US centric global >>> cosmopolitan-ism (grudging accepting the the US centred-ness of this global >>> cultural phenomenon and hoping to cosmopolitan-ise it). To the extent even >>> if some of them do not so accept - like some kinds of political and >>> economic elites outside the US - it is ready to make power-for-power big >>> deals and adjustments. That is what the World Economic Forum is, and >>> everyone know this fact. But this is something to which a big part of civil >>> society involved in the IG space today professed a complete blindness. >>> >>> In reaching the World Economic Forum, and somewhat centring itself on >>> it, the global IG establishment has provided clearer contours to what in >>> any case has been one of the most significant elements of the global >>> politics around the Internet. This is the uneasy political relationship >>> between the globally mobile (now even more mobile, virtually) or at least >>> aspirational upper classes and the more locally rooted, and yes, well, >>> rather constrained, rest-of-the-world, even if often domiciled in the same >>> territory and polity. Much of global Internet politics, captured in the >>> phenomenon of multistakeholderism, represents a combination of political, >>> economic and social elites of the world, and across the world (with its >>> continuous demeaning of the nation state while taking all the benefit of >>> its institutions). This political combination now has a clear home at the >>> WEF, and in it, a clear symbol as well. It is spine-chilling to think what >>> kind of deals and compromises will be worked out among the most powerful, >>> now with the more acceptable tag of a certain globalness attached to them. >>> >>> This globalness achieved by bringing together the elite of the world may >>> be worse than the status quo, which fact worries me the most. In the status >>> quo there was at least the stark legitimacy hole, and certain possibilities >>> of joining of forces among those outside the global Internet power >>> configuration, the rich and the poor alike, to put it somewhat >>> simplistically. The WEF brings to the global IG establishment not only a >>> new legitimacy of a certain globalness, but also divides those who would >>> otherwise be together in their opposition to the US hegemony. Now the top >>> businesses of developing countries can feel more equal with those from the >>> US at WEF panels and working groups, and the leaders of the more powerful >>> developing countries can be variously flattered and offered selective sops. >>> That celebrated meeting of fat cats in the snow at Davos. A perfect photo >>> op. Just the poor, the disposed and the marginalised are missing. They are >>> missing from the forums which would now entrech, as well as develop new, >>> means for ever greater digital control over them. The structures of >>> controls will see minor shifts and adjustments on the top, with concessions >>> thrown around within the narrow elite circles, and those left out will all >>> be worse for these adjustment and changes. This is how the new global >>> paradigm is a great regression from even the status quo. >>> >>> The first country to welcome the WEF's NMI was the US, and also the >>> first to offer itself for a seat in the NMI Council. The second one seeking >>> a seat is Russia. So, you get the picture! (Lets not talk about the >>> Brazilians. They really do not seem to know what they are doing, God >>> forgive them.) The powerful have decided what they plan to do, or not do, >>> about the global governance of the Internet. Now the powerless and the >>> exploited need to figure what they should do; what is their response >>> to this new global Internet power configuration. But for that they first >>> need an organised civil society to direct and lead them, because most of >>> the existing one in the IG space has betrayed them. It is a difficult >>> situation. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday 26 November 2014 03:25 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Civil Society members, >>> >>> >>> >>> After a substantial consultation with members across many different >>> constituencies, the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group >>> (CSCG) has decided that, in accordance with its procedures and with the >>> conditions in the letter below, it will engage in the process of selection >>> of self nominated civil society representatives for the Co ordination >>> Council of the Netmundial Initiative (NMI). >>> >>> >>> >>> In doing so, we acknowledge and respect that Just Net Coalition has >>> determined not to engage in this process, and that there are many civil >>> society people in other coalitions who would also prefer not to engage at >>> this time. >>> >>> >>> >>> For those who choose to engage; if you wish to be a candidate, you must >>> complete the form which can be found at >>> https://www.netmundial.org/coordination-council-nominations, together >>> with the associated documentation, by December 6. Please note that CSCG >>> will not be endorsing nominations but playing a selection role as outlined >>> in the letter below. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you everyone who participated in this consultation and freely >>> expressed their opinions. Below is a letter recently sent to the organisers >>> outlining CSCG’s position and involvement. >>> >>> >>> >>> LETTER TO NMI TRANSITIONAL COUNCIL >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Virgilio, Richard and Fadi, >>> >>> >>> >>> As members of the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group >>> (CSCG), we write to express our appreciation for your openness in working >>> with us to negotiate the terms of civil society’s participation in the >>> NETmundial Initiative; in particular, by accommodating our expectation, >>> drawn from the NETmundial Principles, that if we are to participate on the >>> Coordination Council, we should nominate our own representatives. >>> >>> >>> >>> Since our initial agreement on this principle, we have been consulting >>> with our constituents about whether civil society ought to avail itself of >>> this opportunity at all. We must say that this has been a difficult >>> question, at the end of which there remain some very significant misgivings >>> across a broad segment of civil society about the merits of our prospective >>> involvement. >>> >>> >>> >>> Among the underlying concerns of many are that the involvement of the >>> World Economic Forum in the initiative signals an attempt by economic and >>> political elites to secure a central role in Internet governance; that the >>> Initiative has been organised in a top-down manner that privileges its >>> three promoters above other stakeholders; and that devoting time and >>> resources to the Initiative may detract from other processes such as the >>> Internet Governance Forum. >>> >>> >>> >>> On the other hand, others recognise the opportunity that exists for >>> civil society to help shape the NETmundial Initiative into a mechanism (but >>> not the only mechanism) that can advance the NETmundial roadmap. Despite >>> significant shortcomings in the NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement >>> stemming from influence exerted by powerful actors towards the end of the >>> process, much of the document, including the roadmap, does enjoy broad >>> civil society support. >>> >>> >>> >>> OUR INVOLVEMENT AND PROCESS >>> >>> >>> >>> In the end we have decided to facilitate the involvement of those from >>> civil society who do wish to apply for membership of the Coordination >>> Council, while acknowledging others have decided as a matter of principle >>> that they do not wish to be involved—and indeed would rather that civil >>> society did not participate at all. We acknowledge and respect that our >>> colleagues from Just Net Coalition have taken that position and will not be >>> participating with us in this exercise. >>> >>> >>> >>> The process we have agreed to work with is >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. At the close of nominations (December 6), CSCG Nomcom will review all >>> nominations for civil society participation and evaluate each candidate’s >>> suitability. >>> >>> 2. CSCG Nomcom will recommend one candidate per geographic region, and >>> submits names to Transitional Council with reasons. >>> >>> 3. If necessary, NMI Transitional Council will convene a (virtual) >>> meeting with CSCG Nomcom to discuss any issues arising, with a view to >>> reaching a rough consensus agreement if there are any issues with our >>> nominations. If there is a strong dissenting voice from another area of >>> civil society they may also be invited to participate after discussion. >>> >>> >>> >>> CONDITIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS >>> >>> >>> >>> Although we will work with the NETmundial Initiative’s organising >>> partners to select willing civil society representatives from amongst those >>> who self-nominate through the Initiative’s nomination process, we also >>> outline five simple conditions that we believe representatives are likely >>> to affirm following their appointment to the Coordination Council: >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. We would like the Co-ordination Council to discuss whether CGI.br, >>> WEF and ICANN should have permanent membership of the Coordination Council >>> and what that implies. Whilst it is acknowledged that the above >>> organisations are jointly funding the operational expenses of the >>> Initiative for its first year, this might not remain so. We are not >>> convinced that funding support is sufficient justification for such a role, >>> and we believe that the full Coordination Council itself should approve any >>> permanent seats and what that implies. >>> >>> >>> >>> 2. To the extent that a stated objective of the Coordination Council is >>> "promoting the distributed Internet governance model,” we want to point out >>> that the status quo in Internet governance does not represent the >>> fulfilment of this model. The NETmundial Initiative should not be used to >>> legitimise existing inequalities and deficiencies of the present system and >>> should not hold civil society back from advocating necessary reforms. >>> >>> >>> >>> 3. While we acknowledge the progressive elements of the NETmundial >>> Multistakeholder Statement, it is not the final and definitive statement of >>> Internet governance principles; indeed the Statement itself acknowledges >>> that it is only a work in progress. So we do not see the NETmundial roadmap >>> as an immutable document. We look forward to its refinement and/or >>> augmentation and hope that NMI ensures a bottom up collaborative process to >>> undertake this work. >>> >>> >>> >>> 4. A key performance indicator for the NETmundial Initiative must be the >>> extent to which its activities strengthen and support the Internet >>> Governance Forum, which remains the most significant global hub for general >>> multi-stakeholder Internet governance policy discussions. If the IGF >>> develops the capacity to assume further activities that currently might not >>> fall within their capabilities, this should be facilitated, not opposed. >>> >>> >>> >>> 5. We will wish to evaluate from time to time whether this engagement is >>> providing effective and worthwhile results for our constituencies. >>> >>> >>> >>> We trust that our participation in this Initiative can be accepted with >>> these conditions, and we look forward to working with you to select a >>> balanced, inclusive and capable slate of civil society nominees to join the >>> Coordination Council. >>> >>> >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *CSCG Nomcom for NMI Co ordination Council * >>> >>> >>> >>> *Participating member coalitions* >>> >>> >>> >>> Association for Progressive Communications, represented by Chat Garcia >>> Ramilo, Deputy Executive Director >>> >>> >>> >>> Best Bits, represented by Jeremy Malcolm, Steering Committee member >>> >>> >>> >>> Diplo Foundation, represented by Ginger (Virginia) Paque, Internet >>> Governance Programmes >>> >>> >>> >>> Internet Governance Caucus, represented by Dr Mawaki Chango, >>> Co-Coordinator >>> >>> >>> >>> The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) represented by Robin >>> Gross, NCSG Executive Committee >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter, Independent Chair >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Nov 27 03:18:54 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 09:18:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] UNGA resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age In-Reply-To: <5476A3DE.2080607@ITforChange.net> References: <54766218.5090208@apc.org> <5476A3DE.2080607@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <20141127091854.04d20e4a@quill> Is the actual text which the committee has agreed on available somewhere? Greetings, Norbert On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 09:39:02 +0530 Guru wrote: > see > http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/united-nations-moves-to-strengthen-digital-privacy/article6637660.ece > > .....Mr. Braun warned that without proper checks, “we risk turning > into Orwellian states” where citizens are being constantly monitored, > he told the General Assembly’s committee on human rights. The > resolution was adopted by consensus by the committee and now goes > before the full Assembly in December. It followed weeks of tough > negotiations with Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the > U.S. — members of the so-called Five Eyes intelligence alliance — who > sought to limit the resolution’s scope. > The five countries are not among the 65 co-sponsors of the bill. > > Five Eyes = Big Brother! .... important to consider/remember this, > as the Five Eyes are not amongst the countries routinely castigated > by some, on these lists.... > > Regards > Guru > Gurumurthy Kasinathan > Director, IT for Change > In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC > http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum > > On Thursday 27 November 2014 04:58 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA512 > > > > Dear all, > > > > The UN General Assembly's 3rd committee passed a resolution on the > > right to privacy in the digital age yesterday. The resolution will > > be officially adopted by UNGA next month, but from here it's just > > procedural. The resolution was adopted by consensus, at some cost. > > But there is good text there, building on last year, and new > > language encouraging the Human Rights Council to consider the > > creation of a special procedure on the right to privacy. > > > > Here is APC's statement on the resolution: > > https://www.apc.org/en/node/20029 > > > > And statements from Brazil and Germany, which led this resolution > > > > Brazil: > > http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/4655554/brazil-l26-rev1.pdf > > > > Germany: > > http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/4655572/germany-l26-rev1.pdf > > > > Kind regards, > > Deborah -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Nov 27 03:27:19 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 17:27:19 +0900 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] UNGA resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age In-Reply-To: <20141127091854.04d20e4a@quill> References: <54766218.5090208@apc.org> <5476A3DE.2080607@ITforChange.net> <20141127091854.04d20e4a@quill> Message-ID: <93815C72-2B7B-45AF-AADC-5AE588B183C9@glocom.ac.jp> On Nov 27, 2014, at 5:18 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Is the actual text which the committee has agreed on available > somewhere? > Adam > Greetings, > Norbert > > > On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 09:39:02 +0530 > Guru wrote: > >> see >> http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/united-nations-moves-to-strengthen-digital-privacy/article6637660.ece >> >> .....Mr. Braun warned that without proper checks, “we risk turning >> into Orwellian states” where citizens are being constantly monitored, >> he told the General Assembly’s committee on human rights. The >> resolution was adopted by consensus by the committee and now goes >> before the full Assembly in December. It followed weeks of tough >> negotiations with Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the >> U.S. — members of the so-called Five Eyes intelligence alliance — who >> sought to limit the resolution’s scope. >> The five countries are not among the 65 co-sponsors of the bill. >> >> Five Eyes = Big Brother! .... important to consider/remember this, >> as the Five Eyes are not amongst the countries routinely castigated >> by some, on these lists.... >> >> Regards >> Guru >> Gurumurthy Kasinathan >> Director, IT for Change >> In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC >> http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum >> >> On Thursday 27 November 2014 04:58 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA512 >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> The UN General Assembly's 3rd committee passed a resolution on the >>> right to privacy in the digital age yesterday. The resolution will >>> be officially adopted by UNGA next month, but from here it's just >>> procedural. The resolution was adopted by consensus, at some cost. >>> But there is good text there, building on last year, and new >>> language encouraging the Human Rights Council to consider the >>> creation of a special procedure on the right to privacy. >>> >>> Here is APC's statement on the resolution: >>> https://www.apc.org/en/node/20029 >>> >>> And statements from Brazil and Germany, which led this resolution >>> >>> Brazil: >>> http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/4655554/brazil-l26-rev1.pdf >>> >>> Germany: >>> http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/4655572/germany-l26-rev1.pdf >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Deborah > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 compsoftnet at gmail.com Thu Nov 27 10:54:47 2014 From: compsoftnet at gmail.com (Akinremi Peter Taiwo) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 16:54:47 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <3437C8F6-790B-4CB9-A9A8-4AD30EAABEBE@hserus.net> References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> <5471BC3C.9010602@cafonso.ca> <6a2434846af042eca563344396b22218@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <3437C8F6-790B-4CB9-A9A8-4AD30EAABEBE@hserus.net> Message-ID: +1 to Suresh On Nov 26, 2014 8:15 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > > So…we are not civil society, then. What are we? > > > > > As all the infighting and backbiting clearly suggests, an uncivil society. > > Civility goes out of the door when blind ideology comes into the picture. > > --srs > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sana.pryhod at gmail.com Fri Nov 28 00:11:28 2014 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 07:11:28 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration In-Reply-To: <6AF5822E-4453-4E05-9331-1385E1B5EA52@gmail.com> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428B0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <379D159B-6A67-4AE9-9029-A46139BF4E1A@difference.com.au> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428BD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428C0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <6AF5822E-4453-4E05-9331-1385E1B5EA52@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Izumi, Thank you very much for your very important information. Could you please help me to find the list of participants? I am working on webinar in Russian on recent IG events (Busan, Geneva, Wuzhen), and I can not find any Russian-speaking presenter on Wuzhen. Thank you very much in advance, Best regards, Oksana On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Young-eum Lee wrote: > Thanks for raising the important issues and for the update, Izumi. > > - kind regards, > - Young-eum Lee > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 2014. 11. 22., at 19:11, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > > > > Here is what I found sofar: > http://de.scribd.com/doc/247566581/World-Internet-Conference-Draft-Declaration > > > > This is the draft by the organizers which was not adopted, as Izumi told > me. Does somebody have a final document? > > > > Wolfgang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von > "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > > Gesendet: Sa 22.11.2014 10:25 > > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Akinremi Peter Taiwo; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Cake > > Betreff: AW: [governance] My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration > > > > Hi > > > > the english Version of the conference Website is now closed: > > http://www.wicnews.cn/indexen.shtml > > > > Does anybody have any more information on the adopted text of the final > document, its status etc.? Are there text of speeches or transcripts from > meetings (beyond Izumi notes)available? > > > > Thanks > > > > Wolfgang > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Akinremi > Peter Taiwo > > Gesendet: Sa 22.11.2014 00:04 > > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Cake > > Betreff: Re: [governance] My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration > > > > Good information. Thank you!!!! > >> On Nov 21, 2014 10:13 AM, "David Cake" wrote: > >> > >> Yes, +1 to everything Wolfgang said. I appreciated the updates, and > think > >> you took the right approach. > >> > >> David > >> > >> On 21 Nov 2014, at 4:07 pm, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang < > >> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > >> > >> Thanks Izumi, > >> > >> clear language, great job, right approach. Well done and thanks for all > >> the info. > >> > >> Wolfgang > >> > >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > >> Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU > >> Gesendet: Fr 21.11.2014 06:47 > >> An: governance; > >> Betreff: [governance] Re: My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration > >> > >> We all expected that the Wuzhen Declaration would be read out at the > >> closing ceremony, but that did not happen. > >> > >> Later, at the lunch reception, MInister Lu Wei said in an informal > >> conversation "oh, we don't call it a Declaration, since you do not agree > >> with" to an American guest. > >> > >> It remains to be seen, however, if they will still announce it at the 3 > pm > >> Press Conference (or not). > >> > >> izumi > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 2014-11-21 11:00 GMT+09:00 Izumi AIZU : > >> > >> Here is what I just sent to the organizing committee of the World > Internet > >> Conference. > >> > >> Izumi > >> > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: Izumi AIZU > >> Date: 2014-11-21 10:59 GMT+09:00 > >> Subject: My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration > >> To: Organizing Committee of World Internet Conference < > info at wicwuzhen.cn> > >> > >> > >> Dear Sir/madam, > >> > >> I have been enjoying the WIC so much. Thank you for creating and sharing > >> this wonderful event. > >> > >> I agree with the theme - Internet governance for all - or Interconnected > >> world shared and governed by all. I appreciate the open dialogue > sessions. > >> > >> Now, to the Wuzhen Declaration, I would like to make following comments > >> for the record as an active member of the Civil Society engaged in > Internet > >> Governance and Information Society issues and make my humble > reservation. > >> > >> First, getting the draft in the middle of the night and the deadline of > 8 > >> am for any revision is impossible to accommodate. This is against the > >> spirit of "shared and governed by all". > >> > >> Second, there is no mention of "Multistakeholder" process or approach > >> which has been well accepted by most, if not all, of stakeholders at > ICANN, > >> IGF, and other international fora for Internet governance mechanisms. > Even > >> though there are a lot of room for improvement and reform, simply > ignoring > >> this principle from the declaration, in my view, will greatly discredit > the > >> value of our declaration. > >> > >> Also, there is no reference to WSIS Tunis Agenda, people-centered > >> information society, that is a mistake. > >> > >> No mention of UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights also severely > >> undermines the value and effect. > >> > >> There is too much emphasis on economic and technological potential of > the > >> Internet, but far less views expressed to social, human and cultural > >> dimensions Internet will contribute. > >> > >> Following points are also observed: > >> > >> - Consensus is missing from international cooperation > >> > >> - Internet as an permissionless innovation environment > >> > >> - Accountable participation as part of cyber security activities > >> > >> - Advancement of Internet technology should build on global rough > >> consensus of the engineering technical community (not politics) > >> > >> - Internet as an economy of growth and that China should play a bigger > >> role to help developing countries from her experience > >> > >> With these reasons, I like to make my reservation on record. > >> > >> I also like to mention the statement we co-signed: > >> > >> "Community Statement Presented at Wuzhen Summit" > >> > >> > >> > >> > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141120_community_statement_presented_at_wuzhen_summit/ > >> > >> Thank you for your attention and understanding, I still remain committed > >> and connected with your great effort. > >> > >> Izumi Aizu > >> Senior Research Fellow and Professor, > >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > >> > >> www.anr.org > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Izumi Aizu << > >> > >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > >> Japan > >> www.anr.org > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Nov 28 02:21:22 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 08:21:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] From Confusion to Clarification References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org> <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi everybody After weeks of confusing conflicts let´s move towards clarifying collaboration. What we have seen in the recent (sometimes unfriendly) disputes is that there are many different civil society activists with different civil society positions. This is confusing, both for newcomers who want to join civil society groups in Internet Governance discussions as well as for other stakeholders who want to collaborate with civil society. On the othher Hand: This is natural. The civil Society Stakeholder Groups has similar differences as the governmental stakeholder group if you compare the governmental positions of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, US, EU, Brazil, India, Japan, Australia etc. This not the Problem. The probllem is that you have to know what the position. So it is about transparency and clarity. Here is a proposal how to move forward: We have seen so many people writing long e-mails arguing for their position. Wouldn´t it be better if we use this energy to write more comprehensive and structured position or issue papers so that newbies or outsiders will better understand what the real points under discussions are in CS circles? We have seen rather different arguments around the same issue from JNC to APC and NCUC folks. I propose that we start to work on what I call a “Civil Society Internet Governance Handbook”. This handbook would allow all CS groups within the CSCG to present their own individual points of views so that everybody knows what the positions are. The book could be structured into four main chapters: 1. Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy etc.) 2. Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.) 3. Economic Development (Market domination, competition, infrastructure development etc.) 4. Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.) Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG, Diplo, APC) could nominate four authors (one for each chapter). Each author would be free to argue for her/his position (five to maximum teen pages). There is no need for consensus. Every author would be free to present her/his radical, moderate, liberal and whatsoever position on one of the four main issues. Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into the process and would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG events ahead of us. We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex with main official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN Resolutions etc.) until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book would be around 250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could publish this for the New York event in December 2015. Such a book would seen by the rest of the IG Community as a helpful contribution, it would strengthen the role of CS in the emerging IG multistakeholder mechanisms and would be also an input into the WSIS 10+ process. The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six groups) would be the editor. Any comment? 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 joana at varonferraz.com Fri Nov 28 02:48:25 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 05:48:25 -0200 Subject: [governance] From Confusion to Clarification In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org> <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <8B536798-63E8-4DC4-83E0-8B6198EDA45C@varonferraz.com> Thank you for this great idea, Wolfgang. I find it an excellent proposal to channel energy in something more concrete and organized, besides setting records of this intriguing time on internet history and perhaps moving ahead with civil society dialetics... I would have some second thoughts about the chapters list.. but I like the fact that in this framing IG institutional framework will not be debated in theory, but on issues. I fully support this idea. best joana On 28 November 2014 05:21:22 GMT-02:00, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >Hi everybody > >After weeks of confusing conflicts let´s move towards clarifying >collaboration. What we have seen in the recent (sometimes unfriendly) >disputes is that there are many different civil society activists with >different civil society positions. This is confusing, both for >newcomers who want to join civil society groups in Internet Governance >discussions as well as for other stakeholders who want to collaborate >with civil society. On the othher Hand: This is natural. The civil >Society Stakeholder Groups has similar differences as the governmental >stakeholder group if you compare the governmental positions of China, >Russia, Saudi Arabia, US, EU, Brazil, India, Japan, Australia etc. >This not the Problem. The probllem is that you have to know what the >position. So it is about transparency and clarity. > >Here is a proposal how to move forward: We have seen so many people >writing long e-mails arguing for their position. Wouldn´t it be better >if we use this energy to write more comprehensive and structured >position or issue papers so that newbies or outsiders will better >understand what the real points under discussions are in CS circles? We >have seen rather different arguments around the same issue from JNC to >APC and NCUC folks. > >I propose that we start to work on what I call a “Civil Society >Internet Governance Handbook”. This handbook would allow all CS groups >within the CSCG to present their own individual points of views so that >everybody knows what the positions are. The book could be structured >into four main chapters: > >1. Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy etc.) >2. Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.) >3. Economic Development (Market domination, competition, infrastructure >development etc.) >4. Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.) > >Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG, Diplo, APC) >could nominate four authors (one for each chapter). Each author would >be free to argue for her/his position (five to maximum teen pages). >There is no need for consensus. Every author would be free to present >her/his radical, moderate, liberal and whatsoever position on one of >the four main issues. > >Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into the >process and would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG events >ahead of us. > >We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex with main >official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN Resolutions >etc.) until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book would >be around 250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could publish this for the >New York event in December 2015. Such a book would seen by the rest of >the IG Community as a helpful contribution, it would strengthen the >role of CS in the emerging IG multistakeholder mechanisms and would be >also an input into the WSIS 10+ process. > >The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six groups) >would be the editor. > >Any comment? > >Wolfgang -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Nov 28 03:16:19 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 09:16:19 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification In-Reply-To: <8B536798-63E8-4DC4-83E0-8B6198EDA45C@varonferraz.com> References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org> <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <8B536798-63E8-4DC4-83E0-8B6198EDA45C@varonferraz.com> Message-ID: +1 Am 28.11.2014 08:48 schrieb "Joana Varon" : > Thank you for this great idea, Wolfgang. > > I find it an excellent proposal to channel energy in something more > concrete and organized, besides setting records of this intriguing time on > internet history and perhaps moving ahead with civil society dialetics... I > would have some second thoughts about the chapters list.. but I like the > fact that in this framing IG institutional framework will not be debated in > theory, but on issues. > > I fully support this idea. > > best > > joana > > On 28 November 2014 05:21:22 GMT-02:00, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: >> >> Hi everybody >> >> After weeks of confusing conflicts let´s move towards clarifying collaboration. What we have seen in the recent (sometimes unfriendly) disputes is that there are many different civil society activists with different civil society positions. This is confusing, both for newcomers who want to join civil society groups in Internet Governance discussions as well as for other stakeholders who want to collaborate with civil society. On the othher Hand: This is natural. The civil Society Stakeholder Groups has similar differences as the governmental stakeholder group if you compare the governmental positions of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, US, EU, Brazil, India, Japan, Australia etc. >> This not the Problem. The probllem is that you have to know what the position. So it is about transparency and clarity. >> >> Here is a proposal how to move forward: We have seen so many people writing long e-mails arguing for their position. Wouldn´t it be better if we use this energy to write more comprehensive and structured position or issue papers so that newbies or outsiders will better understand what the real points under discussions are in CS circles? We have seen rather different arguments around the same issue from JNC to APC and NCUC folks. >> >> I propose that we start to work on what I call a “Civil Society Internet Governance Handbook”. This handbook would allow all CS groups within the CSCG to present their own individual points of views so that everybody knows what the positions are. The book could be structured into four main chapters: >> >> 1. Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy etc.) >> 2. Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.) >> 3. Economic Development (Market domination, competition, infrastructure development etc.) >> 4. Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.) >> >> Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG, Diplo, APC) could nominate four authors (one for each chapter). Each author would be free to argue for her/his position (five to maximum teen pages). There is no need for consensus. Every author would be free to present her/his radical, moderate, liberal and whatsoever position on one of the four main issues. >> >> Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into the process and would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG events ahead of us. >> >> We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex with main official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN Resolutions etc.) until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book would be around 250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could publish this for the New York event in December 2015. Such a book would seen by the rest of the IG Community as a helpful contribution, it would strengthen the role of CS in the emerging IG multistakeholder mechanisms and would be also an input into the WSIS 10+ process. >> >> The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six groups) would be the editor. >> >> Any comment? >> >> Wolfgang >> >> >> > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Fri Nov 28 04:11:59 2014 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 04:11:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] From Confusion to Clarification In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org> <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: On Friday, November 28, 2014, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > Hi everybody > > After weeks of confusing conflicts let´s move towards clarifying > collaboration. What we have seen in the recent (sometimes unfriendly) > disputes is that there are many different civil society activists with > different civil society positions. This is confusing, both for newcomers > who want to join civil society groups in Internet Governance discussions as > well as for other stakeholders who want to collaborate with civil society. > On the othher Hand: This is natural. The civil Society Stakeholder Groups > has similar differences as the governmental stakeholder group if you > compare the governmental positions of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, US, EU, > Brazil, India, Japan, Australia etc. > This not the Problem. The probllem is that you have to know what the > position. So it is about transparency and clarity. > > Here is a proposal how to move forward: We have seen so many people > writing long e-mails arguing for their position. Wouldn´t it be better if > we use this energy to write more comprehensive and structured position or > issue papers so that newbies or outsiders will better understand what the > real points under discussions are in CS circles? We have seen rather > different arguments around the same issue from JNC to APC and NCUC folks. > For what it's worth, coming from a "governmental" person (recovering from IG addiction) with an extensive history working in (and quarreling, I meant constructively engaging, with) civil society groups, I think this is an excellent idea - provided that the booklet is short, to the point, completely free of acronyms (I guess this will be the hardest part) and providing some concrete and actionable suggestions. The amount of writing that is distributed on IG mailing lists is staggering, and it's a pity that all these discussions are ultimately lost in online archives that nobody, except die-hard IG addicts, will ever check. All the best, Andrea -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roxanageorgy at gmail.com Fri Nov 28 05:06:39 2014 From: roxanageorgy at gmail.com (Roxana Radu) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 11:06:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Strengthening Internet Governance: the message from the Geneva Internet Conference Message-ID: Dear colleagues, With one week's reflection and careful analysis of the detailed conference reporting, we are pleased to present the outcome document: *Strengthening Internet Governance: the message from the Geneva Internet Conference* The Message is multi-layered: 1. Two-page document : provides a quick overview (key messages are also listed below) 2. Additional information : points from discussions, background information 3. Detailed information : video recordings and notes from the sessions There is a also a time component to the Geneva Message: - Pre-conference discussion (September-November) - Conference discussion itself - Post-conference discussion (we will build further discussion around the Geneva Message as Vladimir Radunović (GIP) did during the Pristina cyber-forum last week and the Arab Internet Governance Forum this week). In this way, we will provide coherence, solidity, and sustainability to the conference process. Please let us know if you need any additional information. It would also be great to get feedback from your communities and suggestions for the next steps in strengthening the Geneva Message. We look forward to interacting with you further at the following GIP events: - Today (Friday) at noon CET, join us for a webinar on Outcomes of the ITU's Plenipotentiary Conference - 2 December (Tuesday) at 13:00 CET, join us online or in situ for the regular Geneva briefing - Internet Governance in November: a bubbling cauldron Jovan, Tereza, and Roxana ------------------------------ * Strengthening Internet Governance: the message from the Geneva Internet Conference* 17-19 November 2014 *1. Mapping Internet governance in a comprehensible and dynamic way* The mapping of Internet governance (IG) – identifying the issues and who deals with them – should be comprehensible and dynamic in order to facilitate easy access to IG for newcomers and improve coordination of activities among stakeholders. *More info.. * *2. Bridging policy silos * Professional and institutional policy silos exist from local to global level, both within and between institutions. Bridging them, with their different practices and vocabularies, is essential in designing and implementing effective and inclusive IG policies. These silos can be traversed using a mix of structured and ad hoc approaches, ranging from joint working groups to informal exchanges. *More info..* *3. Harvesting and harnessing IG complexity* The complexity of IG can be both a threat and an enabler. As a threat, complexity may trigger policy paralysis. As an enabler, if complexity is harvested, it can enrich the IG space with diverse ideas and initiatives. If harnessed, it can help actors to address their IG priorities without losing sight of the broader policy picture. Efforts to deal with complexity should not lead to oversimplification; flexible forms of cooperation should be encouraged. *More info..* *4. Developing innovative legal approaches to the Internet * Legal rules and jurisdiction on the Internet evolve through reinterpretation, adaptation, and expansion of existing laws. In some cases, the creation of new legal mechanisms for online space (e.g. the right to be forgotten, e-signatures) is required. Innovative solutions should be informed by the cumulative wisdom of the legal profession. *More info..* *5. Strengthening genuine participation in IG processes* Full inclusion and genuine participation in IG processes increases the quality and also the acceptance of the policies adopted, building on the diversity of views represented. Strengthening inclusive multistakeholder participation requires a sense of community around which online participation can be implemented. E-participation requires good planning and considerable social engagement. An effective interplay between in situ and e-participation can be achieved through changes in the organisation of meetings, adjustment of procedures, and training. *More info..* *6. Ensuring holistic capacity development* Capacity development for IG should be holistic, going beyond simply training individuals. To be sustainable, capacity development should support the emergence of functional and robust institutions which are essential for facilitating innovation, rule of law, and protecting human rights on the Internet. Capacity development requires a smart mix of training, coaching, and the introduction of policy mechanisms adjusted to specific local and national contexts. *More info..* *7. Aiming for full transparency, accepting occasional translucency* Transparency is a necessary condition for trust, and for the accountability that all IG processes need to adhere to and, where possible, institutionalise. Occasional translucency – being transparent about what we cannot be transparent about – can be accepted when the risks posed by disclosing information are greater than the overall benefits, in particular if they affect those in a vulnerable position. *More info..* *8. Using subsidiarity effectively * While the Internet is a global network, policy implications are often local and national. As the Internet as a network of networks allows for a diversity of local technical solutions that are interoperable, this approach should also be used more at policy level. While adhering to globally shared basic principles, there should be room for diversity of policies responding to different local and regional needs and priorities. Using the principle of subsidiarity to address IG issues at the appropriate level will make IG more effective. It will improve trust in, and ownership and acceptance of, Internet-related policies. When it is not possible to solve a problem locally, ‘policy elevators’ should bring the issue to the optimal level. *More info..* *9. Drafting IG policies in open consultation * Inclusive and participatory multistakeholder policy drafting should start with open consultations. Procedures should facilitate the involvement of diverse actors in collaborative drafting, reflecting a multitude of approaches (diplomatic, technical, civil society, business, etc.). Transparency, with checks and balances, can maximise the potential for broad consensus and minimise the risk of a few actors hijacking the process. *More info..* *10. Prioritising evidence and data collection* Evidence and data should contribute to more solid and sustainable IG. Evidence-based IG typically starts with identifying a full range of possibly diverse needs and aims on all levels. It collects relevant data using appropriate tools and methods, measures and assesses impact, and presents findings in an understandable way for policymakers. Priority areas for evidence-based approaches are cybercrime, and monitoring the level of digital divide. *More info..* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Fri Nov 28 06:57:42 2014 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 12:57:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] From Confusion to Clarification In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org> <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hello all, hello Wolf, I am completely satisfied with this constructive proposal that can reframe the debate towards positive directions. It is appropriate to recognize the exchanges were hot but the arguments of each other have led us towards clarifying this difficult problem regarding our participation in the NMI. I think we can now move although we do not yet have a global consensus on the position to be adopted. 2014-11-28 8:21 GMT+01:00 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>: > Hi everybody > > After weeks of confusing conflicts let´s move towards clarifying > collaboration. What we have seen in the recent (sometimes unfriendly) > disputes is that there are many different civil society activists with > different civil society positions. This is confusing, both for newcomers > who want to join civil society groups in Internet Governance discussions as > well as for other stakeholders who want to collaborate with civil society. > On the othher Hand: This is natural. The civil Society Stakeholder Groups > has similar differences as the governmental stakeholder group if you > compare the governmental positions of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, US, EU, > Brazil, India, Japan, Australia etc. > This not the Problem. The probllem is that you have to know what the > position. So it is about transparency and clarity. > > Here is a proposal how to move forward: We have seen so many people > writing long e-mails arguing for their position. Wouldn´t it be better if > we use this energy to write more comprehensive and structured position or > issue papers so that newbies or outsiders will better understand what the > real points under discussions are in CS circles? We have seen rather > different arguments around the same issue from JNC to APC and NCUC folks. > > I propose that we start to work on what I call a “Civil Society Internet > Governance Handbook”. This handbook would allow all CS groups within the > CSCG to present their own individual points of views so that everybody > knows what the positions are. The book could be structured into four main > chapters: > > 1. Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy etc.) > 2. Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.) > 3. Economic Development (Market domination, competition, > infrastructure development etc.) > 4. Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.) > > Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG, Diplo, APC) > could nominate four authors (one for each chapter). Each author would be > free to argue for her/his position (five to maximum teen pages). There is > no need for consensus. Every author would be free to present her/his > radical, moderate, liberal and whatsoever position on one of the four main > issues. > > Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into the process > and would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG events ahead of us. > > We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex with main > official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN Resolutions etc.) > until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book would be around > 250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could publish this for the New York > event in December 2015. Such a book would seen by the rest of the IG > Community as a helpful contribution, it would strengthen the role of CS in > the emerging IG multistakeholder mechanisms and would be also an input into > the WSIS 10+ process. > > The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six groups) > would be the editor. > > Any comment? > > 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 > > -- *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC* *ICANN/AFRALO Member* *ISOC Member* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joly at punkcast.com Fri Nov 28 06:59:03 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 06:59:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?WEBCAST_TODAY=3A_INET_S=C3=A3o_Paulo=2C_Br?= =?UTF-8?Q?azil?= Message-ID: This is already underway. To be expected, since this is the home of the CGI.br - there will be some discussion of the NetMundial Initiative. Today, Friday November 28 2014 the Internet Society will present a full day conference INET São Paulo, Brazil. INET São Paulo aims to bring together regional community expertise on Internet Governance to leverage local awareness on policy mechanisms and technical issues that are key for the future of the Internet. Brazil has been in the core of Global Internet Governance discussions and is a promising location to nurture a multi-stakeholder debate. Moreover, the event will be co-located together with the 4th NIC.br’s Internet Infrastructure Week and the 5th Privacy and Data Protection Seminar. Remote participation is available via webex, and the event will be webcast live via the Internet Society Livestream Channel. São Paulo is 3 hours ahead of NYC. What: INET São Paulo, Brazil Where: Hotel Blue Tree Premium Morumbi City, São Paulo, Brazil When: Friday November 28 2014 8:30am-18:00pm BRST | 10:30-20:00 UTC Program: https://www.internetsociety.org/inet-sao-paulo/sessions Webex: https://www.internetsociety.org/inet-sao-paulo/node/672 Webcast: http://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/INETSaoPaulo2014 Twitter: #inetsaopaulo Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/inetsaopaolo Comment See all comments Permalink http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7251 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Nov 28 07:43:33 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 07:43:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] Strengthening Internet Governance: the message from the Geneva Internet Conference In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:06 AM, Roxana Radu wrote: > Today (Friday) at noon CET, join us for a webinar on Outcomes of the > ITU's Plenipotentiary Conference > I did a recording of this informative and entertaining talk. http://isoc-ny.org/misc/Diplo_ITU_Plenipot_Review_Nov-28-2014.mp4 - missed the first couple of minutes. j -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Nov 28 08:25:56 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 14:25:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] UNGA resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age In-Reply-To: <93815C72-2B7B-45AF-AADC-5AE588B183C9@glocom.ac.jp> References: <54766218.5090208@apc.org> <5476A3DE.2080607@ITforChange.net> <20141127091854.04d20e4a@quill> <93815C72-2B7B-45AF-AADC-5AE588B183C9@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <20141128142556.774e4635@quill> Thanks a lot, Adam. very helpful. Greetings, Norbert On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 17:27:19 +0900 Adam Peake wrote: > > On Nov 27, 2014, at 5:18 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Is the actual text which the committee has agreed on available > > somewhere? > > > > > > Adam > > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 09:39:02 +0530 > > Guru wrote: > > > >> see > >> http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/united-nations-moves-to-strengthen-digital-privacy/article6637660.ece > >> > >> .....Mr. Braun warned that without proper checks, “we risk turning > >> into Orwellian states” where citizens are being constantly > >> monitored, he told the General Assembly’s committee on human > >> rights. The resolution was adopted by consensus by the committee > >> and now goes before the full Assembly in December. It followed > >> weeks of tough negotiations with Australia, Britain, Canada, New > >> Zealand and the U.S. — members of the so-called Five Eyes > >> intelligence alliance — who sought to limit the resolution’s scope. > >> The five countries are not among the 65 co-sponsors of the bill. > >> > >> Five Eyes = Big Brother! .... important to consider/remember this, > >> as the Five Eyes are not amongst the countries routinely castigated > >> by some, on these lists.... > >> > >> Regards > >> Guru > >> Gurumurthy Kasinathan > >> Director, IT for Change > >> In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC > >> http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum > >> > >> On Thursday 27 November 2014 04:58 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >>> Hash: SHA512 > >>> > >>> Dear all, > >>> > >>> The UN General Assembly's 3rd committee passed a resolution on the > >>> right to privacy in the digital age yesterday. The resolution will > >>> be officially adopted by UNGA next month, but from here it's just > >>> procedural. The resolution was adopted by consensus, at some cost. > >>> But there is good text there, building on last year, and new > >>> language encouraging the Human Rights Council to consider the > >>> creation of a special procedure on the right to privacy. > >>> > >>> Here is APC's statement on the resolution: > >>> https://www.apc.org/en/node/20029 > >>> > >>> And statements from Brazil and Germany, which led this resolution > >>> > >>> Brazil: > >>> http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/4655554/brazil-l26-rev1.pdf > >>> > >>> Germany: > >>> http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/4655572/germany-l26-rev1.pdf > >>> > >>> Kind regards, > >>> Deborah > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your 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 mueller at syr.edu Fri Nov 28 10:48:04 2014 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 15:48:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: [discuss] CSCG Letter to Transitional Council re NETMundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <3DBE730FADFA44F19B7CF0DE66EEC2DB@Toshiba> References: <3DBE730FADFA44F19B7CF0DE66EEC2DB@Toshiba> Message-ID: <65f27b48adc046859b89e3b8d897d551@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Ian, Robin, Ginger, Jeremy and Mawaki: This is a good letter, I think it handles the division within civil society over NMI involvement quite well. --MM From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Ian Peter Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2014 10:27 PM To: discuss at 1net.org Subject: [discuss] CSCG Letter to Transitional Council re NETMundial Initiative Below is a copy of a letter sent yesterday by Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) to the NETMundial Transitional Council. The letter follows from firstly a discussion with NMI as regards our concerns with process, suggesting some more acceptable alternatives, and secondly a period of consultation with members of various civil society coalitions about this and other concerns. FYI Ian Peter LETTER FOLLOWS Dear Virgilio, Richard and Fadi, As members of the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG), we write to express our appreciation for your openness in working with us to negotiate the terms of civil society’s participation in the NETmundial Initiative; in particular, by accommodating our expectation, drawn from the NETmundial Principles, that if we are to participate on the Coordination Council, we should nominate our own representatives. Since our initial agreement on this principle, we have been consulting with our constituents about whether civil society ought to avail itself of this opportunity at all. We must say that this has been a difficult question, at the end of which there remain some very significant misgivings across a broad segment of civil society about the merits of our prospective involvement. Among the underlying concerns of many are that the involvement of the World Economic Forum in the initiative signals an attempt by economic and political elites to secure a central role in Internet governance; that the Initiative has been organised in a top-down manner that privileges its three promoters above other stakeholders; and that devoting time and resources to the Initiative may detract from other processes such as the Internet Governance Forum. On the other hand, others recognise the opportunity that exists for civil society to help shape the NETmundial Initiative into a mechanism (but not the only mechanism) that can advance the NETmundial roadmap. Despite significant shortcomings in the NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement stemming from influence exerted by powerful actors towards the end of the process, much of the document, including the roadmap, does enjoy broad civil society support. OUR INVOLVEMENT AND PROCESS In the end we have decided to facilitate the involvement of those from civil society who do wish to apply for membership of the Coordination Council, while acknowledging others have decided as a matter of principle that they do not wish to be involved—and indeed would rather that civil society did not participate at all. We acknowledge and respect that our colleagues from Just Net Coalition have taken that position and will not be participating with us in this exercise. The process we have agreed to work with is 1. At the close of nominations (December 6), CSCG Nomcom will review all nominations for civil society participation and evaluate each candidate’s suitability. 2. CSCG Nomcom will recommend one candidate per geographic region, and submits names to Transitional Council with reasons. 3. If necessary, NMI Transitional Council will convene a (virtual) meeting with CSCG Nomcom to discuss any issues arising, with a view to reaching a rough consensus agreement if there are any issues with our nominations. If there is a strong dissenting voice from another area of civil society they may also be invited to participate after discussion. CONDITIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS Although we will work with the NETmundial Initiative’s organising partners to select willing civil society representatives from amongst those who self-nominate through the Initiative’s nomination process, we also outline five simple conditions that we believe representatives are likely to affirm following their appointment to the Coordination Council: 1. We would like the Co-ordination Council to discuss whether CGI.br, WEF and ICANN should have permanent membership of the Coordination Council and what that implies. Whilst it is acknowledged that the above organisations are jointly funding the operational expenses of the Initiative for its first year, this might not remain so. We are not convinced that funding support is sufficient justification for such a role, and we believe that the full Coordination Council itself should approve any permanent seats and what that implies. 2. To the extent that a stated objective of the Coordination Council is "promoting the distributed Internet governance model,” we want to point out that the status quo in Internet governance does not represent the fulfilment of this model. The NETmundial Initiative should not be used to legitimise existing inequalities and deficiencies of the present system and should not hold civil society back from advocating necessary reforms. 3. While we acknowledge the progressive elements of the NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement, it is not the final and definitive statement of Internet governance principles; indeed the Statement itself acknowledges that it is only a work in progress. So we do not see the NETmundial roadmap as an immutable document. We look forward to its refinement and/or augmentation and hope that NMI ensures a bottom up collaborative process to undertake this work. 4. A key performance indicator for the NETmundial Initiative must be the extent to which its activities strengthen and support the Internet Governance Forum, which remains the most significant global hub for general multi-stakeholder Internet governance policy discussions. If the IGF develops the capacity to assume further activities that currently might not fall within their capabilities, this should be facilitated, not opposed. 5. We will wish to evaluate from time to time whether this engagement is providing effective and worthwhile results for our constituencies. We trust that our participation in this Initiative can be accepted with these conditions, and we look forward to working with you to select a balanced, inclusive and capable slate of civil society nominees to join the Coordination Council. Sincerely, CSCG Nomcom for NMI Co ordination Council Participating member coalitions Association for Progressive Communications, represented by Chat Garcia Ramilo, Deputy Executive Director Best Bits, represented by Jeremy Malcolm, Steering Committee member Diplo Foundation, represented by Ginger (Virginia) Paque, Internet Governance Programmes Internet Governance Caucus, represented by Dr Mawaki Chango, Co-Coordinator The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) represented by Robin Gross, NCSG Executive Committee Ian Peter, Independent Chair -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Nov 28 15:36:58 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 15:36:58 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification In-Reply-To: References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org> <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <21624.56554.782297.81958@world.std.com> From: Andrea Glorioso >For what it's worth, coming from a "governmental" person (recovering from >IG addiction) with an extensive history working in (and quarreling, I meant >constructively engaging, with) civil society groups, I think this is an >excellent idea - provided that the booklet is short, to the point, >completely free of acronyms (I guess this will be the hardest part) and >providing some concrete and actionable suggestions. Acronyms! I was looking around for what I could find out about CSCG, specifically the list of member or supporting organizations. Just for my own edification. I believe CSCG is the Civil Society Coordination Group. Google told me that CSCG matches, some with high rankings: Corporate Strategy Case Group (top ranking!) Cyber-Security Challenge, Germany (sometimes "owns" #CSCG on twitter) Civil Society Consulting Group Civil Society Contact Group (very high ranking) Cyber-Security Coordination Group Civil Society Coordinating Group Civil Society Coordination Group Civil Society Consultative Group Corporacion para la Seguridad Ciudadana de Guayaquil Center for Science and the Common Good and some others (Circularly Symmetric Complex Gaussian, Christian Science in Glasgow), some might be the same, granted some can be rejected easily but try it, that's not as easy as it might seem. A few acronym lists also contain these variations. Nothing led me to a simple home page or similar for the one I was looking for. Just guessing 'cscg.org' timed out. There's something beyond confusing or overloading about acronyms. Even when you feel you know what you are looking for you can get nowhere. Perhaps this is minor in the scheme of things though seeing Andrea Glorioso's comment motivated me to make this comment. Searching "civil society coordination group" doesn't really narrow down the response spectrum much. P.S. The result is I never found what I was looking for so what is the home page, if any, which corresponds to this local usage of "CSCG"? -- -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 nb at bollow.ch Fri Nov 28 16:09:39 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 22:09:39 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification In-Reply-To: <21624.56554.782297.81958@world.std.com> References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org> <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <21624.56554.782297.81958@world.std.com> Message-ID: <20141128220939.5a22cf63@quill> On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 15:36:58 -0500 Barry Shein wrote: > I was looking around for what I could find out about CSCG, > specifically the list of member or supporting organizations. Just for > my own edification. I believe CSCG is the Civil Society Coordination > Group. > > Nothing led me to a simple home page or similar for the one I was > looking for. Just guessing 'cscg.org' timed out. This isn't well-publicized yet, but you can find some official info at http://internetgov-cs.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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Nov 28 16:16:16 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 08:16:16 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification In-Reply-To: <21624.56554.782297.81958@world.std.com> References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba><54762985.2010101@apc.org><053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com><2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <21624.56554.782297.81958@world.std.com> Message-ID: Hi Barry, You would find a similar problem if you did a Google search for the I-star group (or i* group). Some very cosmic combinations come up for that! And perhaps it should be so. CSCG does not need a high external profile and really exists primarily to ensure a co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside bodies. That said - a few key documents can be found in a fairly haphazard layout at http://internetgov-cs.org/ Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Barry Shein Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 7:36 AM To: Andrea Glorioso Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang ; michael gurstein ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification From: Andrea Glorioso >For what it's worth, coming from a "governmental" person (recovering from >IG addiction) with an extensive history working in (and quarreling, I meant >constructively engaging, with) civil society groups, I think this is an >excellent idea - provided that the booklet is short, to the point, >completely free of acronyms (I guess this will be the hardest part) and >providing some concrete and actionable suggestions. Acronyms! I was looking around for what I could find out about CSCG, specifically the list of member or supporting organizations. Just for my own edification. I believe CSCG is the Civil Society Coordination Group. Google told me that CSCG matches, some with high rankings: Corporate Strategy Case Group (top ranking!) Cyber-Security Challenge, Germany (sometimes "owns" #CSCG on twitter) Civil Society Consulting Group Civil Society Contact Group (very high ranking) Cyber-Security Coordination Group Civil Society Coordinating Group Civil Society Coordination Group Civil Society Consultative Group Corporacion para la Seguridad Ciudadana de Guayaquil Center for Science and the Common Good and some others (Circularly Symmetric Complex Gaussian, Christian Science in Glasgow), some might be the same, granted some can be rejected easily but try it, that's not as easy as it might seem. A few acronym lists also contain these variations. Nothing led me to a simple home page or similar for the one I was looking for. Just guessing 'cscg.org' timed out. There's something beyond confusing or overloading about acronyms. Even when you feel you know what you are looking for you can get nowhere. Perhaps this is minor in the scheme of things though seeing Andrea Glorioso's comment motivated me to make this comment. Searching "civil society coordination group" doesn't really narrow down the response spectrum much. P.S. The result is I never found what I was looking for so what is the home page, if any, which corresponds to this local usage of "CSCG"? -- -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 compsoftnet at gmail.com Fri Nov 28 15:21:30 2014 From: compsoftnet at gmail.com (Akinremi Peter Taiwo) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 21:21:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] From Confusion to Clarification In-Reply-To: References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org> <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: +1 On Nov 28, 2014 12:58 PM, "Baudouin Schombe" wrote: > Hello all, hello Wolf, > > I am completely satisfied with this constructive proposal that can reframe > the debate towards positive directions. > > It is appropriate to recognize the exchanges were hot but the arguments of each > other have led us towards clarifying this difficult problem regarding our participation > in the NMI. > I think we can now move although we do not yet have a global consensus on > the position to be adopted. > > 2014-11-28 8:21 GMT+01:00 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>: > >> Hi everybody >> >> After weeks of confusing conflicts let´s move towards clarifying >> collaboration. What we have seen in the recent (sometimes unfriendly) >> disputes is that there are many different civil society activists with >> different civil society positions. This is confusing, both for newcomers >> who want to join civil society groups in Internet Governance discussions as >> well as for other stakeholders who want to collaborate with civil society. >> On the othher Hand: This is natural. The civil Society Stakeholder Groups >> has similar differences as the governmental stakeholder group if you >> compare the governmental positions of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, US, EU, >> Brazil, India, Japan, Australia etc. >> This not the Problem. The probllem is that you have to know what the >> position. So it is about transparency and clarity. >> >> Here is a proposal how to move forward: We have seen so many people >> writing long e-mails arguing for their position. Wouldn´t it be better if >> we use this energy to write more comprehensive and structured position or >> issue papers so that newbies or outsiders will better understand what the >> real points under discussions are in CS circles? We have seen rather >> different arguments around the same issue from JNC to APC and NCUC folks. >> >> I propose that we start to work on what I call a “Civil Society Internet >> Governance Handbook”. This handbook would allow all CS groups within the >> CSCG to present their own individual points of views so that everybody >> knows what the positions are. The book could be structured into four main >> chapters: >> >> 1. Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy etc.) >> 2. Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.) >> 3. Economic Development (Market domination, competition, >> infrastructure development etc.) >> 4. Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.) >> >> Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG, Diplo, APC) >> could nominate four authors (one for each chapter). Each author would be >> free to argue for her/his position (five to maximum teen pages). There is >> no need for consensus. Every author would be free to present her/his >> radical, moderate, liberal and whatsoever position on one of the four main >> issues. >> >> Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into the process >> and would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG events ahead of us. >> >> We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex with main >> official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN Resolutions etc.) >> until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book would be around >> 250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could publish this for the New York >> event in December 2015. Such a book would seen by the rest of the IG >> Community as a helpful contribution, it would strengthen the role of CS in >> the emerging IG multistakeholder mechanisms and would be also an input into >> the WSIS 10+ process. >> >> The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six groups) >> would be the editor. >> >> Any comment? >> >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* > > > *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC* > > *ICANN/AFRALO Member* > *ISOC Member* > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 > email : b.schombe at gmail.com > skype : b.schombe > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Nov 28 17:12:35 2014 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 22:12:35 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification In-Reply-To: References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba><54762985.2010101@apc.org><053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com><2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <21624.56554.782297.81958@world.std.com>, Message-ID: <31ee510da46d44f3925f2b2f6b8c50ae@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> +1 with a slight amendment to suggested outline/treatment of acronyms in this 'IG' space, also in light of the subsequent discussion following Wolfgang's email. A quick google finds 'IG' could mean: 1) a currency trader in London (paid prioritization aka advertisement ; ); short for Inspector General, or my favorites, short for the 'Ig Nobel' prize; or according to the urban dictionary 'ig' is slang used in sentences such as: ' Simon derided the poseur, "That dude was straight-up ig!" After losing all his cash he sighed in exasperation, "I am so friggin' ig." My straight-up ig point ; ? ) I suggest banning all acronyms is near impossible in this friggin' ig space. So, Ian's book (by the way, congrats Ian! : ) - an index and a glossary to the book should be planned for. Of course all authors should still follow guidelines and avoid acronyms wherever possible. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org on behalf of Ian Peter Sent: Friday, November 28, 2014 4:16 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Barry Shein Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification Hi Barry, You would find a similar problem if you did a Google search for the I-star group (or i* group). Some very cosmic combinations come up for that! And perhaps it should be so. CSCG does not need a high external profile and really exists primarily to ensure a co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside bodies. That said - a few key documents can be found in a fairly haphazard layout at http://internetgov-cs.org/ Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Barry Shein Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 7:36 AM To: Andrea Glorioso Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang ; michael gurstein ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification From: Andrea Glorioso >For what it's worth, coming from a "governmental" person (recovering from >IG addiction) with an extensive history working in (and quarreling, I meant >constructively engaging, with) civil society groups, I think this is an >excellent idea - provided that the booklet is short, to the point, >completely free of acronyms (I guess this will be the hardest part) and >providing some concrete and actionable suggestions. Acronyms! I was looking around for what I could find out about CSCG, specifically the list of member or supporting organizations. Just for my own edification. I believe CSCG is the Civil Society Coordination Group. Google told me that CSCG matches, some with high rankings: Corporate Strategy Case Group (top ranking!) Cyber-Security Challenge, Germany (sometimes "owns" #CSCG on twitter) Civil Society Consulting Group Civil Society Contact Group (very high ranking) Cyber-Security Coordination Group Civil Society Coordinating Group Civil Society Coordination Group Civil Society Consultative Group Corporacion para la Seguridad Ciudadana de Guayaquil Center for Science and the Common Good and some others (Circularly Symmetric Complex Gaussian, Christian Science in Glasgow), some might be the same, granted some can be rejected easily but try it, that's not as easy as it might seem. A few acronym lists also contain these variations. Nothing led me to a simple home page or similar for the one I was looking for. Just guessing 'cscg.org' timed out. There's something beyond confusing or overloading about acronyms. Even when you feel you know what you are looking for you can get nowhere. Perhaps this is minor in the scheme of things though seeing Andrea Glorioso's comment motivated me to make this comment. Searching "civil society coordination group" doesn't really narrow down the response spectrum much. P.S. The result is I never found what I was looking for so what is the home page, if any, which corresponds to this local usage of "CSCG"? -- -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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Nov 28 22:11:38 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 14:11:38 +1100 Subject: [governance] From Confusion to Clarification In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org> <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <7D3020CFCA634CBB99DFA5C51F8840FB@Toshiba> WTF? You want CSCG (JNC, BB, IGC, NCSG APC etc) to write a book on CS perspectives on IG for CSTD in May or perhaps IGF? With no acronyms? But seriously I think it is a good idea to produce something like this. As long as its a genuine collaborative effort. Perhaps it could be called "Many Voices, One World" in memory of the thwarted 1980 attempt to provide alternative perspectives on issues of media and governance in that era. (A good summary of the 1980 events - something we should all be aware of - can be found in the first part of the article here http://www.media-alliance.org/article.php?id=472 ) Well there goes any suggestion of my involvement in an editorial role unless you want the work to be banned... but I am happy to support this idea! Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Sent: Friday, November 28, 2014 6:21 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; michael gurstein ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] From Confusion to Clarification Hi everybody After weeks of confusing conflicts let´s move towards clarifying collaboration. What we have seen in the recent (sometimes unfriendly) disputes is that there are many different civil society activists with different civil society positions. This is confusing, both for newcomers who want to join civil society groups in Internet Governance discussions as well as for other stakeholders who want to collaborate with civil society. On the othher Hand: This is natural. The civil Society Stakeholder Groups has similar differences as the governmental stakeholder group if you compare the governmental positions of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, US, EU, Brazil, India, Japan, Australia etc. This not the Problem. The probllem is that you have to know what the position. So it is about transparency and clarity. Here is a proposal how to move forward: We have seen so many people writing long e-mails arguing for their position. Wouldn´t it be better if we use this energy to write more comprehensive and structured position or issue papers so that newbies or outsiders will better understand what the real points under discussions are in CS circles? We have seen rather different arguments around the same issue from JNC to APC and NCUC folks. I propose that we start to work on what I call a “Civil Society Internet Governance Handbook”. This handbook would allow all CS groups within the CSCG to present their own individual points of views so that everybody knows what the positions are. The book could be structured into four main chapters: 1. Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy etc.) 2. Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.) 3. Economic Development (Market domination, competition, infrastructure development etc.) 4. Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.) Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG, Diplo, APC) could nominate four authors (one for each chapter). Each author would be free to argue for her/his position (five to maximum teen pages). There is no need for consensus. Every author would be free to present her/his radical, moderate, liberal and whatsoever position on one of the four main issues. Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into the process and would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG events ahead of us. We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex with main official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN Resolutions etc.) until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book would be around 250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could publish this for the New York event in December 2015. Such a book would seen by the rest of the IG Community as a helpful contribution, it would strengthen the role of CS in the emerging IG multistakeholder mechanisms and would be also an input into the WSIS 10+ process. The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six groups) would be the editor. Any comment? 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Nov 28 23:04:26 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 05:04:26 +0100 Subject: AW: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org> <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <21624.56554.782297.81958@world.std.com> <31ee510da46d44f3925f2b2f6b8c50ae@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428F9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Lee: A quick google finds 'IG' could mean: 1) a currency trader in London (paid prioritization aka advertisement ; ); short for Inspector General, or my favorites, short for the 'Ig Nobel' prize; or according to the urban dictionary 'ig' is slang used in sentences such as: ' Simon derided the poseur, "That dude was straight-up ig!" After losing all his cash he sighed in exasperation, "I am so friggin' ig." Wolfgang: IG could mean also "Ian the Great" if he excepts the role as an Editor :-))) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Nov 28 23:13:34 2014 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 04:13:34 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428F9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org> <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <21624.56554.782297.81958@world.std.com> <31ee510da46d44f3925f2b2f6b8c50ae@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428F9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: + 1 As in the sentence 'That Ian the Great dude is straight-up ig!' ; ) ________________________________________ From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Sent: Friday, November 28, 2014 11:04 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Lee W McKnight; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Barry Shein; Ian Peter Subject: AW: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification Lee: A quick google finds 'IG' could mean: 1) a currency trader in London (paid prioritization aka advertisement ; ); short for Inspector General, or my favorites, short for the 'Ig Nobel' prize; or according to the urban dictionary 'ig' is slang used in sentences such as: ' Simon derided the poseur, "That dude was straight-up ig!" After losing all his cash he sighed in exasperation, "I am so friggin' ig." Wolfgang: IG could mean also "Ian the Great" if he excepts the role as an Editor :-))) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Nov 29 13:10:46 2014 From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 13:10:46 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification In-Reply-To: <31ee510da46d44f3925f2b2f6b8c50ae@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org> <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <21624.56554.782297.81958@world.std.com> <31ee510da46d44f3925f2b2f6b8c50ae@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <21626.3110.905324.838049@world.std.com> I think what I was leading towards was that perhaps as important, or more important, than eliminating acronyms per se is pointing the acronyms (somehow, occasionally) towards home pages or even just single documents which give some background and explanation and identifies who or what the acronym stands in for in context and by intention. Maybe what we really need is an IG Acronym Registry but we'd spend at least two years arguing whether it should be part of some other organzation or independent and how accountability would work precisely. And perhaps better hyperlinked documents, this wasn't supposed to be such a problem, even Ted Nelson's work in the early 1960s had this more or less solved. Because if you rely on google et al to resolve terms in your documents the result is pretty bad for these purposes. Or perhaps they are our shibboleths. -- -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 mueller at syr.edu Sat Nov 29 13:28:07 2014 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 18:28:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: From Confusion to Clarification In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org> <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Wolfgang: This is a charmingly Kleinwachterian approach to things, but forgive me if I dissent. I think each of the different viewpoints of civil society can be, and already are, represented by CS organizations' own publications. The idea that "Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG, Diplo, APC) could nominate four authors" to represent all of the spectrum of civil society just doesn't work. IGC is a mailing list containing a vast diversity of ideologies, who the heck would they nominate? At the other end of the spectrum, JNC is a single-ideology group, and to a lesser extent so is our IGP (Internet Governance Project). APC is already part of NCSG, BB, and IGC, do they get triple representation? Furthermore, as Andrea Glorioso correctly stated, the plethora of written materials churning out of this environment is already overwhelming, the last thing we need is more. If you want to do this right, then have an ideologically broad and diverse group select some of the best _existing_ publications, or excerpts from publications, that can summarize and explain the spectrum of viewpoints in civil society on IG issues. The selection of issues would also be important: some of us concentrate on very direct and more focused aspects of IG (e.g., names and numbers, routing, interconnection, standards) while others focus on much broader issues that go beyond IG alone (e.g., freedom of expression, access, economic policy) The point here would be to reveal and document the full ideological or policy diversity among us. However, even if you adopt that more reasonable approach, the danger of representing some views as hegemonic or accepted by all when they are not remains. We all get a bit irritated I think when Parminder tells us that our views are not really civil society views, and I can easily see this project leading to those kinds of debates. And I am not sure I see the point of clamoring to get represented in such a publication when we could be pushing our views directly into ongoing policy debates that actually matter. --MM > -----Original Message----- > I propose that we start to work on what I call a "Civil Society Internet > Governance Handbook". This handbook would allow all CS groups within the > CSCG to present their own individual points of views so that everybody > knows what the positions are. The book could be structured into four main > chapters: > > 1. Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy etc.) > 2. Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.) > 3. Economic Development (Market domination, competition, > infrastructure development etc.) > 4. Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.) > > Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG, Diplo, APC) could > nominate four authors (one for each chapter). Each author would be free to > argue for her/his position (five to maximum teen pages). There is no need > for consensus. Every author would be free to present her/his radical, > moderate, liberal and whatsoever position on one of the four main issues. > > Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into the process > and would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG events ahead of us. > > We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex with main official > texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN Resolutions etc.) until the > May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book would be around 250 pages. > If we find a sponsor we could publish this for the New York event in > December 2015. Such a book would seen by the rest of the IG Community as > a helpful contribution, it would strengthen the role of CS in the emerging IG > multistakeholder mechanisms and would be also an input into the WSIS 10+ > process. > > The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six groups) would > be the editor. > > Any comment? > > 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 mueller at syr.edu Sat Nov 29 13:29:37 2014 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 18:29:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] CSCG - participation in selection of civil society representatives for NMI Coordination Council In-Reply-To: References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <5475FC5D.8050700@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <6831526a530c4d55b5a40bc239788d96@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Here, from Nnenna, is a shorter version of what I was trying to tell Wolfgang in my last message: I dont think that there will ever be a time when one person (or a group of persons for that matter) will be able to fully represent all the aspirations of the global civil society. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 30 12:47:12 2014 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 18:47:12 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br Message-ID: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> Dear Carlos   Yoiu wote : < there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took the reigns of the government of Brazil.   You are right : there were hundreds of thousand Brasilians -Indignados and others- in the streets and places to protest about Lula's and Dilma's "softened" policy. BTW, Davos is hosting annually a "policicy softening course of treatment" ...   Best regards   Jean-louis Fullsack   > Message du 23/11/14 00:47 > De : "Carlos Afonso" > A : "Suresh Ramasubramanian" , "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "parminder at itforchange.net" > Copie à : "Hartmut Richard Glaser" , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > Objet : Re: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br > > Dear people, > > In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as president. As > usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with massive > acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in loco the > thousands of people cheering Lula. > > From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of > corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social movements of > course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a sort of > scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, NGOs > and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among them) -- > our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, and there is > no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took the reigns > of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it would be the other > way around. > > I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of > arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different > (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > (*) See, for example, this report: > http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate-globalisation > > On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> > >> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br has now come > >> out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and ICANN (basically > >> doing US's bidding) game. > > > > Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. > > > > > >> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave the world > >> the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the basic lessons > >> with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain economic and > >> political elite, and their impatience with democracy, especially at the > >> global level! > >> > > > > Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. > > > > Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that excludes stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic backgrounds that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but merely pure demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain far, far away from the civil society mainstream thinking on this subject. > > > >> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the Brazilian > >> government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a great loss, > >> and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive community > >> has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be taken for > > > > I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global progressive community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you continue to push, and that the majority of the community apparently doesn't share. > > > >> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out > >> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global governance > >> initiative.* > >> > > > > Your support, and those of the small splinter group of extremists that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us all from such support. > > > >> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work together > >> with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil society offer > >> ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the interests > >> and fate of the people of the world, and of the future generations. Let > > > > That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of inclusiveness. Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large. You don't and have never represented it all. > > > > --srs > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Nov 30 13:18:16 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 19:18:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> References: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> Message-ID: <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> Hi Jean, I am a Brazilian, from São Paulo and living in Rio. No one saw "hundreds of thousands" in the streets in June 2013 or any other time except in the 80's with the campaign for direct elections for president and the 90' with the movement for ethics in politics. Brazil has 142 million voters. It takes a lot more than a few hundreds of 1-2 thousand people in Paulista Avenue to be representative of the will of Brazilian people. Nice to be sitting comfortably somewhere in Europe and doing this kind of shallow evaluation of our political process. You should better take a look at the disastrous neoliberal policies being practiced in Europe since the 2008 crisis. fraternal regards --c.a. On 11/30/14 18:47, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > Dear Carlos > > Yoiu wote : > > < there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took > the reigns > of the government of Brazil. > > You are right : there were hundreds of thousand Brasilians -Indignados > and others- in the streets and places to protest about Lula's and > Dilma's "softened" policy. > > BTW, Davos is hosting annually a "policicy softening course of > treatment" ... > > Best regards > > Jean-louis Fullsack > > > > > > > > Message du 23/11/14 00:47 > > De : "Carlos Afonso" > > A : "Suresh Ramasubramanian" , > "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , > "parminder at itforchange.net" > > Copie à : "Hartmut Richard Glaser" , > "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > > Objet : Re: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br > > > > Dear people, > > > > In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as > president. As > > usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with > massive > > acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in loco > the > > thousands of people cheering Lula. > > > > From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of > > corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social movements of > > course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a > sort of > > scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, > NGOs > > and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among > them) -- > > our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, and > there is > > no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took the > reigns > > of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it would be > the other > > way around. > > > > I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of > > arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different > > (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. > > > > fraternal regards > > > > --c.a. > > > > (*) See, for example, this report: > > > http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate-globalisation > > > > On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > >> > > >> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br > has now come > > >> out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and > ICANN (basically > > >> doing US's bidding) game. > > > > > > Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. > > > > > > > > >> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave > the world > > >> the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the > basic lessons > > >> with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain > economic and > > >> political elite, and their impatience with democracy, > especially at the > > >> global level! > > >> > > > > > > Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. > > > > > > Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that > excludes stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic > backgrounds that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but > merely pure demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain > far, far away from the civil society mainstream thinking on this > subject. > > > > > >> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the > Brazilian > > >> government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a > great loss, > > >> and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive > community > > >> has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be > taken for > > > > > > I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global > progressive community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you > continue to push, and that the majority of the community apparently > doesn't share. > > > > > >> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out > > >> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global > governance > > >> initiative.* > > >> > > > > > > Your support, and those of the small splinter group of > extremists that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us > all from such support. > > > > > >> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work > together > > >> with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil > society offer > > >> ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the > interests > > >> and fate of the people of the world, and of the future > generations. Let > > > > > > That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of > inclusiveness. Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large. > You don't and have never represented it all. > > > > > > --srs > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Nov 30 13:43:45 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 10:43:45 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> References: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <02af01d00ccd$9293c090$b7bb41b0$@gmail.com> Perhaps this is what Jean-Louis is pointing to... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_protests_in_Brazil An estimated 250,000 protesters took to the streets of various cities on June 17. The largest protests were organized in Rio de Janeiro, where 100,000 attended from mid-afternoon of June 17 to late dawn of June 18. M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos Afonso Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 10:18 AM To: Jean-Louis FULLSACK; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; SureshRamasubramanian; parminderitforchange.net Cc: HartmutRichardGlaser; bestbitslists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br Hi Jean, I am a Brazilian, from São Paulo and living in Rio. No one saw "hundreds of thousands" in the streets in June 2013 or any other time except in the 80's with the campaign for direct elections for president and the 90' with the movement for ethics in politics. Brazil has 142 million voters. It takes a lot more than a few hundreds of 1-2 thousand people in Paulista Avenue to be representative of the will of Brazilian people. Nice to be sitting comfortably somewhere in Europe and doing this kind of shallow evaluation of our political process. You should better take a look at the disastrous neoliberal policies being practiced in Europe since the 2008 crisis. fraternal regards --c.a. On 11/30/14 18:47, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > Dear Carlos > > Yoiu wote : > > < there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF > took the reigns of the government of Brazil. > > You are right : there were hundreds of thousand Brasilians -Indignados > and others- in the streets and places to protest about Lula's and > Dilma's "softened" policy. > > BTW, Davos is hosting annually a "policicy softening course of > treatment" ... > > Best regards > > Jean-louis Fullsack > > > > > > > > Message du 23/11/14 00:47 > > De : "Carlos Afonso" < ca at cafonso.ca> > > A : "Suresh Ramasubramanian" < suresh at hserus.net>, > " governance at lists.igcaucus.org" < governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, > " parminder at itforchange.net" < parminder at itforchange.net> > > Copie à : "Hartmut Richard Glaser" < glaser at cgi.br>, > " bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" < bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > > Objet : Re: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br > > > > Dear people, > > > > In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as > president. As > > usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with > massive > > acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in loco > the > > thousands of people cheering Lula. > > > > From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of > > corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social movements of > > course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a > sort of > > scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, > NGOs > > and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among > them) -- > > our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, and > there is > > no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took the > reigns > > of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it would be > the other > > way around. > > > > I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of > > arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different > > (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. > > > > fraternal regards > > > > --c.a. > > > > (*) See, for example, this report: > > > http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate-globalisation > > > > On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > >> > > >> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br > has now come > > >> out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and > ICANN (basically > > >> doing US's bidding) game. > > > > > > Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. > > > > > > > > >> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave > the world > > >> the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the > basic lessons > > >> with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain > economic and > > >> political elite, and their impatience with democracy, > especially at the > > >> global level! > > >> > > > > > > Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. > > > > > > Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that > excludes stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic > backgrounds that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but > merely pure demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain > far, far away from the civil society mainstream thinking on this > subject. > > > > > >> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the > Brazilian > > >> government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a > great loss, > > >> and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive > community > > >> has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be > taken for > > > > > > I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global > progressive community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you > continue to push, and that the majority of the community apparently > doesn't share. > > > > > >> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out > > >> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global > governance > > >> initiative.* > > >> > > > > > > Your support, and those of the small splinter group of > extremists that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us > all from such support. > > > > > >> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work > together > > >> with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil > society offer > > >> ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the > interests > > >> and fate of the people of the world, and of the future > generations. Let > > > > > > That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of > inclusiveness. Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large. > You don't and have never represented it all. > > > > > > --srs > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joao.caribe at me.com Sun Nov 30 14:04:07 2014 From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Jo=E3o_Carlos_R=2E_Carib=E9=22?=) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 17:04:07 -0200 Subject: [governance] From Confusion to Clarification In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org> <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Appear to be a very interesting idea, first time come to my mind this project could expose strategically the civil society stakeholder, giving out concerns, positions and other valuable assets that can be used against us in our strives, shortly thereafter I realized that who can use it knows us better than us. I approve, also can support in any task. Congratulations for this savvy idea Wolf Joao Caribe Em 28/11/2014, às 05:21, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang escreveu: > Hi everybody > > After weeks of confusing conflicts let´s move towards clarifying collaboration. What we have seen in the recent (sometimes unfriendly) disputes is that there are many different civil society activists with different civil society positions. This is confusing, both for newcomers who want to join civil society groups in Internet Governance discussions as well as for other stakeholders who want to collaborate with civil society. On the othher Hand: This is natural. The civil Society Stakeholder Groups has similar differences as the governmental stakeholder group if you compare the governmental positions of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, US, EU, Brazil, India, Japan, Australia etc. > This not the Problem. The probllem is that you have to know what the position. So it is about transparency and clarity. > > Here is a proposal how to move forward: We have seen so many people writing long e-mails arguing for their position. Wouldn´t it be better if we use this energy to write more comprehensive and structured position or issue papers so that newbies or outsiders will better understand what the real points under discussions are in CS circles? We have seen rather different arguments around the same issue from JNC to APC and NCUC folks. > > I propose that we start to work on what I call a “Civil Society Internet Governance Handbook”. This handbook would allow all CS groups within the CSCG to present their own individual points of views so that everybody knows what the positions are. The book could be structured into four main chapters: > > 1. Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy etc.) > 2. Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.) > 3. Economic Development (Market domination, competition, infrastructure development etc.) > 4. Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.) > > Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG, Diplo, APC) could nominate four authors (one for each chapter). Each author would be free to argue for her/his position (five to maximum teen pages). There is no need for consensus. Every author would be free to present her/his radical, moderate, liberal and whatsoever position on one of the four main issues. > > Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into the process and would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG events ahead of us. > > We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex with main official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN Resolutions etc.) until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book would be around 250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could publish this for the New York event in December 2015. Such a book would seen by the rest of the IG Community as a helpful contribution, it would strengthen the role of CS in the emerging IG multistakeholder mechanisms and would be also an input into the WSIS 10+ process. > > The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six groups) would be the editor. > > Any comment? > > 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 -- João Carlos R. Caribé Consultor Skype joaocaribe (021) 4042 7727 (021) 9 8761 1967 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 30 14:07:44 2014 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 20:07:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> References: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Dear Carlos, I think we all agree in trying to balance our views before coming to conclusion. As a Frenchman, I always like to see by your signature, the "fraternal regards". As you know we have made it part of our national identity (liberté, égalité, fraternité) - with ups and downs - and that sense of brotherhood surely starts with naming correctly each other. Jean-Louis is not Jean, and Jean-Christophe is not Jean. And you are not Juan-Carlos, right? I thank you for that having a fraternal mutual consideration on this. On the neoliberal policies you are pointing at, maybe this is taking us all a little too far out of hands. Not sure that this characterization will support our mutual understanding. Brazil is a big country and what is doing CGIbr or the steering committee might not entirely reflect the Brazilian government stance over transnational Internet public policy issues. If any Brazilian part of the Social Forum has survived over the years, he might not be fully satisfied with the initiative, something that we have been arguing so much these last weeks. We know it is always more complicated. By the way what's the Brazilian telecommunication authorities' view on netmundial conference and initiative? I am not sure they were invited or contributing to the summit, but do they share the same view as CGIbr for now? Have the Brazilian government made a specific statement on the 'initiative'. Would be happy to read it. That would be helpful. Best, JC Le 30 nov. 2014 à 19:18, Carlos Afonso a écrit : > Hi Jean, I am a Brazilian, from São Paulo and living in Rio. No one saw "hundreds of thousands" in the streets in June 2013 or any other time except in the 80's with the campaign for direct elections for president and the 90' with the movement for ethics in politics. Brazil has 142 million voters. It takes a lot more than a few hundreds of 1-2 thousand people in Paulista Avenue to be representative of the will of Brazilian people. > > Nice to be sitting comfortably somewhere in Europe and doing this kind of shallow evaluation of our political process. You should better take a look at the disastrous neoliberal policies being practiced in Europe since the 2008 crisis. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 11/30/14 18:47, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: >> Dear Carlos >> >> Yoiu wote : >> >> < there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took >> the reigns >> of the government of Brazil. >> >> You are right : there were hundreds of thousand Brasilians -Indignados >> and others- in the streets and places to protest about Lula's and >> Dilma's "softened" policy. >> >> BTW, Davos is hosting annually a "policicy softening course of >> treatment" ... >> >> Best regards >> >> Jean-louis Fullsack >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Message du 23/11/14 00:47 >> > De : "Carlos Afonso" >> > A : "Suresh Ramasubramanian" , >> "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , >> "parminder at itforchange.net" >> > Copie à : "Hartmut Richard Glaser" , >> "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" >> > Objet : Re: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br >> > >> > Dear people, >> > >> > In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as >> president. As >> > usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with >> massive >> > acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in loco >> the >> > thousands of people cheering Lula. >> > >> > From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of >> > corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social movements of >> > course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a >> sort of >> > scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, >> NGOs >> > and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among >> them) -- >> > our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, and >> there is >> > no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took the >> reigns >> > of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it would be >> the other >> > way around. >> > >> > I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of >> > arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different >> > (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. >> > >> > fraternal regards >> > >> > --c.a. >> > >> > (*) See, for example, this report: >> > >> http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate-globalisation >> > >> > On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> > >> >> > >> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br >> has now come >> > >> out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and >> ICANN (basically >> > >> doing US's bidding) game. >> > > >> > > Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. >> > > >> > > >> > >> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave >> the world >> > >> the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the >> basic lessons >> > >> with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain >> economic and >> > >> political elite, and their impatience with democracy, >> especially at the >> > >> global level! >> > >> >> > > >> > > Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. >> > > >> > > Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that >> excludes stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic >> backgrounds that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but >> merely pure demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain >> far, far away from the civil society mainstream thinking on this >> subject. >> > > >> > >> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the >> Brazilian >> > >> government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a >> great loss, >> > >> and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive >> community >> > >> has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be >> taken for >> > > >> > > I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global >> progressive community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you >> continue to push, and that the majority of the community apparently >> doesn't share. >> > > >> > >> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out >> > >> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global >> governance >> > >> initiative.* >> > >> >> > > >> > > Your support, and those of the small splinter group of >> extremists that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us >> all from such support. >> > > >> > >> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work >> together >> > >> with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil >> society offer >> > >> ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the >> interests >> > >> and fate of the people of the world, and of the future >> generations. Let >> > > >> > > That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of >> inclusiveness. Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large. >> You don't and have never represented it all. >> > > >> > > --srs >> > > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cveraq at gmail.com Sun Nov 30 15:28:32 2014 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 18:28:32 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: References: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: I agree in full with the view and perspective of Carlos Alfonso. It is irritating this sort of new colonialism even in this lists and spaces. People who conquer, destroy and kill our people and made us slaves want to maintain this I the same way and NO WAY. Bravo CA fraternal regards JC Carlos Vera Quintana 0988141143 Sígueme @cveraq > El 30/11/2014, a las 17:07, Jean-Christophe Nothias escribió: > > Dear Carlos, > > I think we all agree in trying to balance our views before coming to conclusion. > > As a Frenchman, I always like to see by your signature, the "fraternal regards". As you know we have made it part of our national identity (liberté, égalité, fraternité) - with ups and downs - and that sense of brotherhood surely starts with naming correctly each other. Jean-Louis is not Jean, and Jean-Christophe is not Jean. And you are not Juan-Carlos, right? I thank you for that having a fraternal mutual consideration on this. > > On the neoliberal policies you are pointing at, maybe this is taking us all a little too far out of hands. Not sure that this characterization will support our mutual understanding. Brazil is a big country and what is doing CGIbr or the steering committee might not entirely reflect the Brazilian government stance over transnational Internet public policy issues. If any Brazilian part of the Social Forum has survived over the years, he might not be fully satisfied with the initiative, something that we have been arguing so much these last weeks. We know it is always more complicated. By the way what's the Brazilian telecommunication authorities' view on netmundial conference and initiative? I am not sure they were invited or contributing to the summit, but do they share the same view as CGIbr for now? Have the Brazilian government made a specific statement on the 'initiative'. Would be happy to read it. That would be helpful. > > Best, > JC > > >> Le 30 nov. 2014 à 19:18, Carlos Afonso a écrit : >> >> Hi Jean, I am a Brazilian, from São Paulo and living in Rio. No one saw "hundreds of thousands" in the streets in June 2013 or any other time except in the 80's with the campaign for direct elections for president and the 90' with the movement for ethics in politics. Brazil has 142 million voters. It takes a lot more than a few hundreds of 1-2 thousand people in Paulista Avenue to be representative of the will of Brazilian people. >> >> Nice to be sitting comfortably somewhere in Europe and doing this kind of shallow evaluation of our political process. You should better take a look at the disastrous neoliberal policies being practiced in Europe since the 2008 crisis. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >>> On 11/30/14 18:47, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: >>> Dear Carlos >>> >>> Yoiu wote : >>> >>> < there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took >>> the reigns >>> of the government of Brazil. >>> >>> You are right : there were hundreds of thousand Brasilians -Indignados >>> and others- in the streets and places to protest about Lula's and >>> Dilma's "softened" policy. >>> >>> BTW, Davos is hosting annually a "policicy softening course of >>> treatment" ... >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Jean-louis Fullsack >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Message du 23/11/14 00:47 >>>> De : "Carlos Afonso" >>>> A : "Suresh Ramasubramanian" , >>> "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , >>> "parminder at itforchange.net" >>>> Copie à : "Hartmut Richard Glaser" , >>> "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" >>>> Objet : Re: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br >>>> >>>> Dear people, >>>> >>>> In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as >>> president. As >>>> usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with >>> massive >>>> acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in loco >>> the >>>> thousands of people cheering Lula. >>>> >>>> From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of >>>> corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social movements of >>>> course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a >>> sort of >>>> scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, >>> NGOs >>>> and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among >>> them) -- >>>> our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, and >>> there is >>>> no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took the >>> reigns >>>> of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it would be >>> the other >>>> way around. >>>> >>>> I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of >>>> arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different >>>> (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. >>>> >>>> fraternal regards >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>> (*) See, for example, this report: >>> http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate-globalisation >>>> >>>> On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br >>> has now come >>>>>> out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and >>> ICANN (basically >>>>>> doing US's bidding) game. >>>>> >>>>> Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave >>> the world >>>>>> the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the >>> basic lessons >>>>>> with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain >>> economic and >>>>>> political elite, and their impatience with democracy, >>> especially at the >>>>>> global level! >>>>> >>>>> Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. >>>>> >>>>> Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that >>> excludes stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic >>> backgrounds that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but >>> merely pure demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain >>> far, far away from the civil society mainstream thinking on this >>> subject. >>>>> >>>>>> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the >>> Brazilian >>>>>> government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a >>> great loss, >>>>>> and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive >>> community >>>>>> has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be >>> taken for >>>>> >>>>> I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global >>> progressive community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you >>> continue to push, and that the majority of the community apparently >>> doesn't share. >>>>> >>>>>> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out >>>>>> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global >>> governance >>>>>> initiative.* >>>>> >>>>> Your support, and those of the small splinter group of >>> extremists that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us >>> all from such support. >>>>> >>>>>> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work >>> together >>>>>> with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil >>> society offer >>>>>> ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the >>> interests >>>>>> and fate of the people of the world, and of the future >>> generations. Let >>>>> >>>>> That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of >>> inclusiveness. Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large. >>> You don't and have never represented it all. >>>>> >>>>> --srs >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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